As a conservative and partly

libertarian pundit, I spend a lot of time trying to convince people that

the federal government is too large and intrusive, and is involved in

matters it is not authorized by the Constitution to be involved in.

But there is one thing that

the federal government could and should do to improve the nation as a

whole that it has not done.

I think it's becoming clear

to everyone who is paying any attention at all to the mess in Florida

that the federal government needs to standardize the nation's voting machinery.

What we have in Florida is

a complete debacle, but don't blame Florida. It could have happened almost

anywhere. Florida just happens to be under the national microscope right

now.

Similarly exposed, would Fulton

County or Georgia put on a better show? Maybe, but I'm not all that certain.

All of the counties in all

of the states need to use the same equipment for voting, and that equipment

needs to be modernized every now and then.

If the thought of mandatory

standardization frightens you, perhaps the better route would be simply

to give each state a ballot modernization block grant every few years.

Then, at least, no state would have an excuse for using antiquated machinery

that's not even manufactured anymore.

Or using mail-in ballots, for

heaven's sake!

But in Florida, the problem

is not that the machinery is antiquated. Rather, it's that the procedures

are not well spelled out.

It wouldn't matter so much

in 99 percent of elections, in which there's at least a 5 or 10 percent

margin. But in an election as tight as this one, clearly spelled-out procedures

are a must. New procedures may not guarantee the absence of corruption

and error, but they should reduce the chance of it dramatically.

Florida's ballots were designed

to be counted by machines, purposely to reduce the opportunity for human

error intentional or otherwise. Yet some county election leaders have

decided to have those ballots counted by hundreds of fallible, corruptible,

admittedly biased human beings.

And then on top of that, a

judge declared that those humans should use their discretion to decide

whether to count ballots that were improperly punched ones that were not

punched all the way through, as the instructions clearly state, but that

have "dimples" that might indicate that the person was thinking

about punching that particular hole.

Think about where that leads.

A counter who thinks he can read that voter's mind might conclude that

the voter intended to punch the hole for a given candidate but just didn't

push hard enough. That counter would count the vote for that candidate.

I, on the other hand, think

it's obvious that the most likely reason for a dimple is that the person

started to punch that hole, changed his mind or suddenly realized she

was punching the wrong spot, and changed holes at the last minute.

If I'm right, you're going

to see a lot of perfectly valid votes thrown out, because the counter

is going to read the dimple as one vote and the second hole punched through

as a second vote, invalidating the ballot.

That process is a sham.

Some pundits are saying that

Florida law clearly spells out that a machine recount is the right course

of action if the vote differential is closer than 1 percent, and they're

arguing that the recount has been performed and that should be the end

of it.

I can agree with that if the

law is really that clear. But if it's really that clear, why isn't it

being followed?

I've also read that the law

allows hand recounts only if it's been shown that something is wrong with

the machines. Again, if it's all that clear, I can't imagine a judge denying

a motion to stop the hand recount. All the lawyer has to is stick a highlighted

copy of the law under the judge's nose.

I have to think the law is

not clear, and in that case it needs to be rewritten, preferably by someone

who communicates for a living, not someone who litigates for a living.

I'm not sure yet whether I'm

ready to push for a federal law that spells out voting procedures and

contingencies for close or tie votes. I hate to advocate anything where

the federal government takes more control.

But I'm tempted. I'm mighty

tempted.