Donella
Meadows
撰稿20.11.2000
我們在這場瘋狂選戰的餘波中學到了些什麼呢？究竟一張選票的力量有多大呢？
或者，當一萬九千張選票能因為一個郡的因素而被推翻、當票箱遺失時、當他們根據各自的預期來要求進行或終止選票重計時，一張選票會是多麼地沒有價值呢？
從投票日當天的莊嚴神聖，到後來的荒謬無稽，這前後的落差真是大呀！
無論各個候選人如何拖延這個選舉過程，對我個人來說，選舉日仍然是莊嚴神聖的。我感覺到我是在參加一場神聖的儀式。在投票所，我的鄰居搖身一變、成了威嚴十足的官員，監督這個莊嚴的過程。每一個合法的公民，不論穿著工作靴或是皮鞋，都一律平等。一億個人皆有各自的看法，這聽起來就讓人心生敬畏。無論哪一位勢單力薄的候選人，都有可能因為我們的參與而當選。
但是在投票日過了之後呢？既然有一億筆零碎的資料，則難免會有些錯誤發生。而如果這就是我們所面臨的問題，那麼那些秉持著誠信所投出的選票勢必會遭受牽連。我們所知道關於選舉的「謬誤」總是在芝加哥(Chicago)及東部德州(Texas)。而如今西棕櫚灘的情況呢？ 蝴蝶選票與打孔選票呢？
雖然很荒謬，但跟選舉結果難產無關，有些人說這樣不確定的情勢正慢慢地傷害我們的民主體制，讓我們的國家處於一個疑雲密佈且令人無法承受的狀態，讓人民受苦。在我的生活周遭、那些過著典型的平常生活的人們，這些事件就像是加料的戲劇，成為他們茶餘飯後討論的話題。而似乎只有那些希望能有機會坐上空軍一號(Air Force One)的候選人家屬們才會憂心地食不下嚥吧。
如果這種遲而未決的情況還會持續一陣子的話，也許對國家來說反而會比較好一些。或許時間上的不確定，會讓人覺得不舒服，但同時也讓人感到興奮與其重要性，也藉此培養出一些創造力。我們會開始思考，先是以開玩笑的心態，接著開始嚴肅對待，跳脫票箱之外。就像某些人說的，我們對這些候選人都不怎麼喜歡，就讓柯林頓(Bill Clinton)繼續留任，直到他們能提出比較好的方案為止吧。
或是就像另外一些人說的，讓我們有兩個總統吧。一個負責儀式上的事情，一個則負責政策事務。或者，兩個人輪流各當兩年總統，或每個月輪流當。在任何選舉中，假設有不可避免、計算上的錯誤，各候選人間的差距最後仍小於百分之一，接著大概就會發生某種形式的權利共享。
此外，有些人想要廢掉問題叢生的選舉人票制度。這對於那些輸掉全民普選，但卻贏得大選的人來說是一種傷害，但「贏者全得」的制度同樣也是對少數選民的一種暴行。當我住在某一州、一個我總是屬於少數族群的地方，我發現這並不難理解，「狗屁，幹嘛這麼麻煩？」而支持我、讓我堅持去投票的唯一理由，就是我自己對於這一個過程的尊重。在這次大選之前，它讓我們大部分的人能一探此過程的內部運作方式。
我們是否能以最有效的財務管理做為評斷原則，將總統職位裁決給能使平均每張選票成本最低的候選人呢？如果採用這項標準，納德(Nader)將會贏得總統大選(平均一張選票耗費2.5美元)，高爾(Gore)第二(平均一張選票耗費2.7美元)，布希(Bush)第三(平均一張選票耗費3.7美元)，而布坎南(Buchanan)則遠遠地落後(平均一張選票耗費64美元)。
而更好的辦法是，讓我們就此終結金錢在選戰中所扮演的腐敗角色吧。
為什麼這一億人運作的這一套嘲弄他們的信任、扭曲他們的意向、或忽視他們的付出的制度呢？這實在是沒有什麼道理，這是屬於我們自己的遊戲，我們可以自行制定規則。這次的選舉，很明顯曝露出現行制度對於人民選票的不尊重。所以，就讓這樣渾沌不明的結果持續到有所改變為止吧。
內布拉斯加州(Nebraska)及緬因州(Maine)已經以國會分區來劃分選民投票，所以「贏者全得」的制度，至少能區別不同地區不同的選票。這規則也許能結束在佛羅里達州(Florida)的論戰。為什麼不讓各州都採用這種規則呢？或者為什麼我們不乾脆廢棄選舉人票，改採全民投票？
我們為何不使用結果立現的選舉制度呢？當候選人超過兩人以上時，選民可以個人的喜好來排序，假如沒有任一個候選人能得到超過半數的選票(如同在這次選舉中所發生的情形)，則將得票數最低的候選人列為第一順位的選票，將會被轉給第二順位的候選人，以此類推，直到某位候選人取得絕對多數為止。這樣的變革能將原本將選票投給納德(Nader)而不願讓布希(Bush)當選的選民，或是原本把票投給布坎南(Buchanan)而不願讓高爾(Gore)當選的選民，能真正地行使其公民的權利。這也將挑戰美國人在政治相關議題中偏愛中間派人士，這個普遍的假設。
選舉制度很明顯地需要改革。改革後，可能可以將選舉的時間縮短成數週，就像目前歐洲的情形一樣。這確保提供一個平等的戰場，而每位嚴陣以的候選人得以使用相等的資源。這能使來自誤導大眾的廣告的訊息，轉為來自有益大眾的政策聲明、以及真正的辯論。這使得競選經費來自大眾，藉此讓獲選的政府官員了解自己是受到誰的支持而當選。
這聽起來不可思議，或是有點不切實際嗎？你知道的，每一個想法在最初公開時，總是讓人覺得不可能，即使是民主制度、權利均衡，以及選舉人票等概念都是一樣的。目前總統選舉所採用這套不公平制度，已使得選民的信任與信心深受打擊，在這樣的情況下，究竟什麼是最不可思議的呢？那就是讓目前這套制度繼續運作下去。
唐妮拉米朵斯(Donella Meadows)是達特茅斯學院環境研究所的助理教授，也是位於佛蒙特州的哈特蘭永續協會的理事長。
全文及圖示詳見： http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/citizen/
citizen112000.stm
版權歸屬 Grist Magazine 環境信託基金會（陳均輝 譯，黃曉菊 審校）
中英對照全文：http://news.ngo.org.tw/reviewer/donella/
re-donella00122501.htm |
|
by Donella Meadows
20 Nov 2000
What is it we are learning in the aftermath of this crazy election? How powerful a single vote can be?
Or how worthless a single vote can be, when 19,000 of them can be tossed out in one county? When boxes of ballots get lost? When recounts are demanded or stopped depending on their expected outcome?
Such a plunge, from the sublimity of voting day to the ridiculousness that followed!
No matter how far down the candidates have dragged the campaign, voting day still seems sublime to me. I feel I am participating in a sacred ritual. At the polling place my neighbors are transformed into dignified officials, overseeing a solemn process. The people file by, in work boots or office shoes, each one equal. There's a sense of awe -- 100 million people are having their say. One or another of those tinny candidates is about to be invested with our joint power.
But the day after? Given 100 million pieces of data, mistakes will be made. Given what's at stake, votes cast in faith will be tampered with. We've always known about election "irregularities" in Chicago and East Texas. Now West Palm Beach? Butterfly ballots and dimpled chads?
Much is ridiculous here, but not the long wait for results. Some people are saying that the uncertainty is undermining our democracy, holding the nation in unbearable doubt, distressing the people. But everyone around me is leading a normal life, with the added spice of a drama to talk about. The only folks who seem eaten with anxiety are those hoping to get to ride in Air Force One.
It would be better for the nation if the unsettledness goes on for awhile. Times of irresolution may be uncomfortable, but they are also exciting and important. They foster creativity. We begin to think, first jokingly, then seriously, outside the box. As when some people say, we didn't much like either of those guys; let's just keep Bill Clinton till they come up with something better.
Or others say, let's have a co-presidency. One could go to ceremonies; the other could be the policy wonk. Or each could get two years, or one month on, one month off. Given inevitable counting errors, some kind of power sharing should probably follow any race where the margin between candidates is closer than, say, one percent.
Others want to get rid of the rusty, creaking electoral college. Not only is it an outrage for the person who lost the popular vote to win the election, the principle of "winner-take-all" is an outrage to minority voters. When I lived in a state where I was always in the minority, I found it easy to think, "Heck, why bother?" The only thing that kept me going to the polls was my respect for the process. That was before this election had given all of us much too close a look at the inner workings of the process.
How about -- to reward efficient fiscal management -- awarding the presidency to the candidate who paid the least for each vote? By that criterion Nader ($2.50 per vote) would win, with Gore second ($2.70), Bush third ($3.70) and Buchanan a distant last ($64.00 per vote).
Better yet, let's end the corrupting role of money in our campaigns.
There is no reason why 100 million people need to put up with a system that mocks their trust, twists their intentions, or ignores their input. This is our game; we can write the rules. This election has shown clearly that the present rules do not respect the votes of all the people. So let its messy conclusion keep us in uncertainty long enough to make changes.
Nebraska and Maine already split their electoral votes by congressional district, so "winner takes all" at least recognizes different votes in different parts of the state. That rule would have ended the controversy in Florida. Why doesn't every state adopt it? Or why don't we dump the electoral college and go to a popular vote?
Why not the instant runoff? When there are more than two candidates, each voter could rank them in order of preference. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent (as was the case in this election), all first-choice votes for the lowest vote-getter are re-assigned to the second choice, and so on, until someone gets a majority. That change would have enfranchised the Nader voter who didn't want to hand the election to Bush, or the Buchanan voter who didn't want to hand it to Gore. It would also challenge the widespread assumption that Americans prefer the middle of the political spectrum.
Campaign reform is an obvious necessity. It could limit the campaign season to a few weeks, as is the case in Europe. It could make a level playing field by assuring equal resources to all serious candidates. It could deflect those resources from misleading ads to informative policy statements and real debates. It could provide campaign money from the people, so our elected officials would understand to whom they are beholden.
Sound impossible? A little crackpot? You know, every idea sounds impossible when it's first articulated -- even democracy, even a balance of powers, even the electoral college. What seems really impossible, at this moment when the trust and faith of our voters have been so insulted by the unfairness of our present electoral system, is that we will put up with it any longer.
Donella Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College and director of the Sustainability Institute in Hartland, Vt.
http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/
citizen/citizen112000.stm
|
