Some packed air mattresses; others simply brought a toothbrush. In swing states such as Ohio, community centers became improvised dormitories for Democrats canvassing for John Kerry days before the 2004 election.
corners with a group of 15 to 20 other volunteers and waving signs at passing drivers. “Motorists in turn would honk and wave and we responded by yelling or jumping up and down,” he wrote. Election day saw Wilson and others rising at 3:45 a.m. to monitor polling stations. They redirected voters who showed up at the wrong site and advised people how to cast provisional ballots. Election officials tapped one volunteer, Christopher Pelham ’05, to enter the polls and help process voters. “This unusual move by the precinct election judge showed just how desperate the situation was in some places,” wrote Wilson. The trip home, however, was “somber” for the Democratic volunteers. “As we crossed western Pennsylvania…we heard Kerry’s concession speech on the radio. Some students shed tears as they listened, while others simply stared out the windows.”
Postelection Analysis
P
reelection concerns that the 2004 election would be marred by voting irregularities of the kind that cast so much doubt on the results of the last election, did not play out. Visiting Professor Nathaniel Persily analyzed the voting procedures and found lots of problems, but not enough to question the results. Persily, an assistant professor of law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, said most of last year’s voting troubles fell into the category of “regular irregularities”—ones that appear every election cycle, such as long lines, incompetent poll workers, partisan secretaries of state, voter error, fraudulent registration and ballot fraud. This year the problems were exacerbated by the high
AUTUMN 2005
voter turnout, but the issues were for the most part similar to previous years. The only unique set of problems in this election came from new voting technology. One widely reported problem occurred in Gahanna, Ohio, where an electronic voting machine recorded 4,238 votes for Bush at a polling site in which only 638 people voted.
That the election turned out to be anticlimactic was confirmed four months later, when former Oregon Senator Robert Packwood ’57 and former U.S. Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo analyzed the election results in what had been billed as a partisan debate. The event was less of a debate than expected. Though Packwood is a Republican and Cuomo a Democrat, both speakers indicated that they shared similar opinions about the last presidential election. Both agreed that gay marriage gave Bush an unexpected edge, when a November 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court— which held that gay couples had a right to marry under the state constitution—galvanized conservatives to turn out the vote. Additionally, they both agreed that Bush’s certainty in his beliefs gave him an advantage over Kerry—even though many voters might not have agreed with Bush’s views. “In a time of war,” said Cuomo, “that certitude gave people confidence.” Packwood agreed. “The public, I think, for better or worse, gives Bush credit for standing firm on the issues.” ■
Professor Rachel Barkow lamented that the media examined Bush and Kerry’s body language more closely than the substance of their remarks. New voting technology, however, also cured other problems. One notorious form of old voting technology, the punch card ballot, often leads to overvoting or undervoting, in which a ballot records a vote for two candidates or no candidates at all. In the states with new technology, this problem was solved. Unfortunately, some states still use the old technology. In Ohio, a hotly contested state that still used the punch card ballots, 76,068 punch card ballots recorded no votes for president. Another potential controversy stemmed from the long lines at the many polling places in Ohio, resulting in thousands of citizens leaving without voting due to the wait. But, despite the irregularities, in the end voter turnout decided the election, Persily said. “The fact that Republicans were able to counter the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote drive with their own meant that Republicans were ultimately able to win the election.” A trusted name in Election 2004 analysis: visiting professor Nathaniel Persily