If you thought that the last time you would have to hear the term separation of powers was in your high school civics class, then the 2000 presidential election certainly spoiled that plan. While the emotional argument in Florida is to count every vote; the real issue at stake is the distribution of power in the entities of our American government. Our system of government sets up three ongoing battles for domestic power. The first revolves around those powers or rights reserved to individuals and those relinquished to various levels of the government. Next, the Constitution divides powers between the federal government and the several states. Finally, power is distributed among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This distribution is nearly mirrored at the federal and state levels. It is this last distribution of power which is the source of most conflict.

Our constitution begins with a noble preamble that enumerates the general scope of our government. Unfortunately, it jumps directly from the purpose to Articles I, II, and III which establish the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches without an overall concept of operations. These articles empower and limit but do not generally define how conflicts between branches will be resolved. There are some exceptions, specifically enacting legislation, filling vacancies, and impeachment; but as a whole the constitution focuses on three separate entities with little attention paid to boundaries and interaction. This does not diminish the value of what the founding fathers provided us. Our Constitution has served us well for 216 years with only infrequent modification, but to truly understand it, we must examine a piece of history that goes beyond our shores.

Our founding fathers were less focused on specific boundaries for each of the branches than they were with providing a lasting foundation that separated them. They dealt first hand with a monarchy that had gradually and begrudgingly divested itself of total sovereignty. The Magna Charta was not a government reinvented from the ground up, but a milestone in power wrestled from a monarch. While the most visible struggle in British Constitutional History is arguably that between the monarch and the parliament; perhaps the most applicable to our government is that of the Chancellor and his equitable powers.

About the same time that America was discovered and colonization began, England faced mounting problems with its laws. Statutory law was in its infancy and common law was the preponderance of the judicial foundation. Unfortunately, common law did not provide remedies in many situations, most of them arising out of property arrangements. Such remedies could only be obtained from the monarch, or his chief minister--the chancellor. The chancellor was a unique individual. He governed in the king's council, had some jurisdiction over the common law courts, and represented the king's conscience. He could provide extraordinary relief that the courts could not. He could provide equity. Equity in its broadest sense denotes the spirit of fairness and justness. It is justice ascertained by natural reason or ethical insight but independent of the formulated body of the law.

The chancellor was often a bishop, well schooled in Roman and Canon law. When he found nothing in the common law, he relied upon his ecclesiastic training to provide a remedy. In the British power struggle, the chancellor was perceived as a threat to both parliament and the common law courts. While the chancellor exercised both legislative and judicial authority, he was primarily an extension of the monarch--the executive. As the British system evolved, the equitable powers of the chancellor became less intrusive to the other branches of government through the adoption of equitable principles. Eventually, precedent carried greater weight than individual discretion. This self regulation of the chancery preserved its existence.

When the Constitution of the United States was formulated, equitable power was placed exclusively in the judiciary. What had crossed functional areas in the British system was now reposed in a single branch. What had originally been executive power restrained by the parliament was now wholly vested in one branch of our government. Such a history does not make for a restrained court system. The equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor allowed him to step across functional boundaries to provide remedies. Even though equity has become much more formalized and governed to a very significant degree by precedent, its roots belie its restriction to a single branch. Equity is the province of the sovereign and resists division.

I advocate judicial restraint and recognize that such a conservative approach will sometimes create selective injustices. That is, the court system will not always be able to provide a remedy. Sometimes, the judiciary must simply wait for the legislature to create a remedy in law. My position is backed by a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Some courts are more active and generally are classified as liberal or activist. They always seek to find a remedy. Their legitimacy is not found in the Constitution but in the history of common law and the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor. In a government where power is consolidated in a monarch or dictator, there is no conflict. In a government that has separated basic government functions to prevent tyranny, conflict is inherent in the organization and aggravated by assigning powers not divisible by three to a single branch.

I can offer no alternative without increasing the risk of excessive power consolidated in the executive branch or diluting the power of each branch to impotence. Equitable power is the free safety of football or the rover in softball. It instinctively moves to fill a void in power. It is generally constrained to follow precedent but not restrained by it when new remedies are required. It can serve as the oil that lubricates the wheels of our government or it can grind that same government to a halt to effect an individual remedy. It provides comfort that imperfections will be overcome and anxiety over what those unknown remedies will be. Equity recognizes the divisions of our governmental system but knows no timidity when testing their boundaries. While our founding fathers greatest fear was that a government of the people would surrender their plenary power to a power hungry executive; it is the tool of the monarch's first minister--the equitable power of the chancellor--that is the wild card in our system of government. That power is vested in the judiciary, but by its very nature must venture elsewhere.

With such a natural disposition to cross functional boundaries, why would I advocate restraint in a judiciary vested with equitable powers? The very nature of equitable power in 14^th century Britain was nearly its undoing. The equitable power of the chancellor threatened both parliament and common law courts, but instead of an overt power struggle, equity limits were subtly restrained. Such restraint was not by the parliament or the courts but by the nature of the equitable power itself. It offered remedies not elsewhere available and the chancellor's court was quickly overwhelmed. Remedies that supplanted other alternatives available from the government were self defeating. The most viable solution was self restraint. Rigidity and precedent became the rule and new remedies in equity were reserved for the truly extraordinary case. Equitable power became formalized and survived the power struggles of our ancestors. While the philosophical composition of any court may cause it to test the boundaries of power; it is equity that invites a judicial body to boldly journey into the roles of legislator and executive. Those exercising such equitable power know that every such venture comes with the concomitant that it may be the very event that topples the delicate balance of separated powers. Such power must be wielded with exceptional restraint.

We are in the final countdown in one of the closest presidential elections in recent history. Voters are rallying to their causes by tuning out instead of turning out. Who can blame them? Imperfect candidates are promising more than can be delivered in a society that values individual rights and freedoms so highly. Candidate speeches are targeted to the group of the day, and in short it's politics as usual. Actually, that's not quite accurate. It's democracy as usual. Democracy--or in our case reestablishing our republic on a recurring basis--is something that is taken for granted by far too great a percentage of our population. Voter complacency is understandable in that our republic's existence has not been truly threatened for almost two hundred years. Voter complacency will never be acceptable because it sows the seeds of decline. Extremist groups in our own country thrive on the complacency of the majority. So who can blame you for tuning out? I will for one. If you don't vote, not only do you get what you deserve in the way of national leadership; we all do.

If you are waiting for the perfect candidate, then you slept through civics class. The Constitution is a foundation to form a more perfect union, but it's a come as you are affair. We pick from among those with the courage to step forward and seek public office. Yes, I did say courage not self-serving interests. It took a lot of physical courage for the founding fathers to begin this endeavor. Make the world England did not come with any caveats. A George Washington or Thomas Jefferson hanging by a rope for treason against the Realm was a reality today's candidates don't face. On the other hand, I doubt that few of our founding fathers would have survived the microscopic scrutiny applied to the private lives of today's candidates.

Politics is a target rich environment for armchair quarterbacks. The opportunities for second guessing are endless. The problem is that too many armchair quarterbacks have forgotten that they are on the playing field. If you are an eligible voter, you have lost the right to second guess. That right is reserved for our youth that witness democracy in action first hand from their parents, teachers, coaches, pastors, and other members of their community; and for millions of people around the world that marvel at the paradox of a democracy that has grown to lead the world, yet harbors a disinterested electorate.

If you're looking for the perfect candidate, stop looking. Pick one of the imperfect ones that have stepped forward to lead your nation, enact your laws, or provide direction to your local schools. Vote.

A lot of folks are ready to discard the Electoral College with Hillary blindly leading the bandwagon charge. Change is good, but we must realize the Electoral College is not a stand alone entity. It is an integrated product of the entire philosophy of our republic. We divide power among federal branches and reserve other rights and powers to the states and to individuals. The Tenth Amendment is often overlooked or just considered an afterthought. It's not. It is crucial to our understanding of our own government. To simply discard the Electoral College and use a national popular vote ignores that distribution of power. We have become a society of instant gratification and should place this election in a political, historical, economic, and libertarian perspective before we dive headlong into changes that are rooted more in the current emotion than in viability. By all means, let's conduct a wholesale review of the process, but we should be open to considering multiple alternatives and evaluating them once cooler heads prevail (and I'm praying that we will see that day soon). Let's use our partisan emotions to get this review started--strike while the iron is hot--but let's make sure we take the time and apply the level of effort required to get it right.

Wow! I just read the Florida Supreme Court Decision in Gore-Lieberman v. Harris et al., and I'm liquidating everything I own just to buy the movie rights. It just doesn't get any better than this, for conflict, that is. The political stage could not have been more craftily set if William Shakespeare and Niccolo Machiavelli had been writing it during happy hour at Hooters.

After 31 days of America held hostage by the Sunshine State, the Florida Supreme Court has directed a recount of what has been labeled the undervote. This was a split decision that was closer than the 4-3 vote on the court. No, that's not fuzzy math. That's a reflection of the intent of the voters on the Florida Supreme Court. The Court's opinion and the two dissenting opinions offered in the ruling will surely serve as the very briefs themselves on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues of fact, law, and fairness are so intertwined that a reasoned opinion on one aspect creates dysfunction in others despite the court's best efforts to resolve all that was before it.

I side with the minority in this case but am not surprised by the higher court overturning the circuit court's ruling. This has been the season of the unexpected with each side having some claim to either justice or the truth. Both have been so elusive that only the struggle remains clear.

Here is the struggle as it is currently cast. George W. Bush has been certified by the executive branch of the State of Florida following strict adherence to the earlier orders of the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Legislature has come into special session for the purpose of discussing, and possibly appointing another slate of electors, presumably for Bush, to ensure that the current election contest does not give the national legislature grounds to throw out the original slate. Internal conflict rules in this organization with the minority party dissent lead by Lois Franco who defeats her best logical and emotional appeals by ruthless attacks on the majority party, stating that they have been "bought" by the Bush campaign. While the Republican majority could likely push through whatever resolution it wanted based solely upon their elected majority; these representatives must be ever mindful of their own next election.

On the judicial front, the Florida Supreme Court's ruling begs to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation's highest court must also struggle with internal conflict. The conservative majority by definition does not like to meddle in state affairs and the wording of the Florida Court's opinion is laden with cautiously worded construction that states that it followed both federal and Florida law in its reasoning despite its ruling.

As if the powers of our government that are separated by constitutions and statutes did not have enough conflict among themselves, the very order of the Florida Supreme Court has opened the Pandora's Box of vote counting. In a court that doesn't think twice about stepping into the legislative arena, no tangible standard--or more accurately, no criterion for the standard--was prescribed. The court defaulted in this single instance to the vague standard defined by the legislature--the clear intent of the voter. Of those ballots classified as undervotes that have been hand counted to date, no two canvassing boards used the same standard. Now it is likely that over sixty counties worth of undervote ballots will be counted in the next few days. The prize sought by the Gore campaign are the close to 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County which now reside in Leon County and will likely be counted by members of the Leon County Election and Canvassing Board, and probably anyone standing on a street corner with a "Will work for food or election closure" cardboard sign. By the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, the circuit court judge that draws this assignment--Judge Saul recused himself--could simply look at each ballot and if the chad was not punched completely through, rule that there was no clear intent. More than likely, lawyers for each side will make arguments as to what should be considered clear intent and how it is distinguished from intent that has no modifying adjective. The judge could seek the other extreme and rule that no one who went to the polls would have abstained from voting for president (despite the millions nation wide that said they would do and did just that) and direct that any mark on or near a candidate's name would be counted as a vote. The permutations of this equation would certainly involve too many marks on a ballot and return the argument to square one.

I wish I could say that it got easier from here, but--no surprise--it doesn't. While arguments defining the criterion and criteria that will give sufficient credibility to the legislative standard are underway; another strange twist lurks in the shadows. Consider the language of the courts opinion in this matter. "In tabulating the ballots and in making a determination of what is a 'legal' vote, the standard to be employed is that established by the legislature in our Election Code which is that the vote shall be counted as a 'legal' vote if there is 'clear indication of the intent of the voter.' Section 101.5614(5), Florida Statutes 2000." Do these very words not resolve every issue of absentee ballot postmarking? If the intent of the voter (never an issue in the absent ballots) can be determined (it can), then it is a legal vote. This court has effectively mooted any arguments to keep out any absentee ballot based on the postmark. The fact that the ballot was correctly filled out makes it legal and places it in the category of the undervote and demands that it now be counted.

Regardless of the outcome or recounts and appeals, the Florida Legislature will have been given more ammunition by the Florida Supreme Court to consider the election results in doubt than the other forty cases still underway in the state ever could have.

Now we come to the electors. These are men and women pledged to vote for their party's candidate. They are selected for their unswerving loyalty, but they have witnessed a spectacle never before seen in this modern age. Would a Bush elector defect because Gore won the popular vote? Would Gore electors cast their votes for Bush because they believed the president should not be elected by the courts. A month ago these questions would have been the stuff of poor fiction. Today, they fall reasonably within the one percent or so of all of the other possibilities that normally lie outside of two standard deviations, but have come to pass in this election. Don't count your electors until they vote.

It is possible that when the United States Congress meets in January 2001, Florida will forwarded to the seat of national government three slates of electors (two Bush and one Gore) and two sets of electoral votes (one Bush and one Gore). Each of the Florida branches of government will be represented by its own slate of electors. The executive and legislative branches will have certified electors for Bush and the judicial branch will have certified for Gore. Two of these will likely bear the signature of the Florida executive--Jeb Bush--and have the presumption of validity; but the Congress could decide to throw both sets of votes out. Then the question of whether a majority of all of the state electors is needed or just a majority of those electors whose votes have been accepted looms in the wings.

Should the entire matter be moved from the electoral vote to the Congress, the House of Representatives has a narrow Republican majority and the Senate is dead even. The President of the Senate is Al Gore and by any and every standard of fairness and ethics, he must recuse himself from any vote on this matter. That would presumably leave the Senate in complete gridlock; except that Gore's running mate, Joseph Lieberman, was reelected and is one of the fifty Democratic Senators. While politically unfair (an oxymoron for sure), ethically he must also recuse himself and that gives the Republicans a one vote majority for only those matters in which they must resolve issues of presidential succession. Were this not enough in itself, the current administration and congress are on the verge of a government shutdown over another budget battle. This is a battle that has gone on in the shadows of all other issues. While it does not bear directly on the parties involved or ultimate resolution of the issue; it will certainly make for a macabre tone when the Congress comes into session.

On a similar note, the Clinton Administration has denied the Bush-Cheney team use of the transition funds and facilities. Today's Florida Supreme Court ruling will certainly give the current administration a perceived validity in continuing this course of action, but with the sheer number of lawsuits in Florida, and the copycat suits that are now likely to arise throughout the country, what standard will be used to define when these assets can be released? Will the Clinton Administration show the same restraint if Gore is certified by the Florida Courts? Will it wait until all cases and appeals are settled? If that is the case, at best the transition office may open the day before inauguration, if the U.S. Congress can resolve the issue by then.

In the political cliché of this election, let's take this one step further. If the decision of presidential succession does go to the U.S. House of Representatives, the vote is taken by state, not by individual representative. Does this now open the door to the original jurisdiction clause of Article III of the United States Constitution, for a state to seek relief from the United States Supreme Court for a legislative decision made not by a vote of elected representatives but by a one-state, one-vote election process presumably resulting from the votes of U.S. Representatives of each state prior to state by state voting in the House? Like the game show Jeopardy, too many of these answers come in the form of a question.

The only clear matter in this entire saga is that the one clear winner will be the first person to translate this into a full length movie. Don't think people won't be interested just because they lived through it. People would like to have this all explained on the big screen in two hours. I think Gene Hackman is a cinch to play the part of David Bois. Will somebody please send me Oliver Stone's fax number.

Which will come first? George W. Bush learning the names of the leaders of other countries or those leaders learning the name of our 43^rd president.

I'm tired of the unsupported premise that we have a choice of the lesser of two evils or otherwise wasted votes. One candidate's verbiage that supports tax cuts, lock boxes, or availability of low cost prescription drugs is challenged immediately by supporters of the other candidates. So why has the term lesser of two evils been so widely used without contest.

Part of the reason is that we are unduly cynical. Politics is closely aligned to war. Machiavelli, Sun Tsu, and Clausewitz concur. Those on the political battlefield will naturally become wounded and scarred. There is no absolution before they enter the battlefield. It is a come as you are affair. The warrior's pack is filled with his past achievements, sins, and lessons learned. Good candidates carry many of each. No candidate emerges from a vacuum. While some indirect experience may be gained from studying the mistakes of others; eventually a true candidate must step out of academic or philosophical sanctuary onto the battlefield in order to serve in public office. It is the expectation of finding a saint among warriors that produces cynicism.

Those with the greatest likelihood of gaining power will attract the most hostile fire. In politics that means microscopic scrutiny of an individual life. Should Ralph Nader suddenly jump twenty points in the polls, you can bet that the level of scrutiny applied to his life will accelerate exponentially. The pundits and the press love high profile targets. A candidate with only single digit support is enjoying scrutiny defilade. Those that seek a third party candidate to avoid the lesser of two evils will suddenly find themselves a victim of their own verbiage if their candidate gains prominence. Does a three way race equate to the least of the evils.

Stop rationalizing your choices in terms the lesser of two evils. Find the candidates that best represent your interests and the interests of the nation and get behind them. If you can't find one, perhaps it's time to get on the battlefield yourself.

Palm County Paradox

A voter who on election day was too embarrassed to ask for help in explaining something on the ballot that will now hold up a sign on national TV that reads "I'm confused." It is this Florida voter that has gone from ignorance to celebrity without taking the slightest detour for education that will elect our next president. God Save the Queen!

Florida Democrats have fumbled on the two yard line and their head coach is screaming "overs." They thought they had crossed the goal line and let go of the ball. It wasn't their fault. How were they to know the goal line was the one that ran 53 yards from side to side and not just another hash mark. Al Gore is on the field requesting an instant replay while play is still in progress. Jesse Jackson has come out of the coaches booth and has taken up positions with the cheerleaders in shouts of "unfair." George Bush is watching the clock run down while the ball bounces all over the field. Jeb Bush has gone to the locker room and hopes he doesn't have to do all the dishes after Thanksgiving dinner. Joe Lieberman is glad he didn't give notice at his old job. Leno and Letterman have fired their writers and are taking their material directly from the network commentators. And in the nation's capital, Yasser Arafat is unpacking his overnight bag in the Lincoln Bedroom asking himself why he should expect sanity amidst this fracas. He's probably also wondering if he can cover the tab for his accommodations. A little farther North, Don King is kicking himself for not selling tickets to the event of the year.

Ok, there might just be a little sarcasm and exaggeration here. Let's look at the real issues. Some people voted for two different presidential candidates. I can see that. There are always people that abstain from voting, why should their votes go to waste. If you don't show up at the pot luck dinner, somebody else is going to eat that chicken leg. Let's count both votes until all the votes are gone.

Alright, now I'll get serious. The deceptive ballot issue cannot be taken lightly. How were those voters to know that they were supposed to punch the hole next to the big black arrow extending from their candidate's name? The fact that these ballots looked a lot like other ballots across the country must be ignored, they were just too confusing. You want to see confusion in Florida, get on I-4 going West and try to find an exit that doesn't go to an amusement park. Well, you hadn't thought much about going to Disney World, but since you somehow ended up in the neighborhood, why not? What do you mean you parked your car in the Grumpy lot instead of Goofy.

Maybe we should just do the whole thing over again. While we are at it, let's turn loose some folks from those overpopulated prisons. Some of them were convicted on pretty thin evidence. "Honest, I was payin' for that Big Gulp with my Saturday Night Special." OK, that's an unfair analogy. The stick up guy was probably paying attention to what he was doing and shouldn't be berated by comparing him with a Florida voter. Well at least Al Gore has the decency to say he will honor the election process and the rule of law. Of course, his definition of honor closely resembles Dennis Rodman's definition of conservative apparel. This would all be very funny if it was not serious politics, but it wouldn't be serious politics if it wasn't so funny.

And in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton reads the Twenty-Second Amendment and contemplates the definition of more than two terms.

In all fairness to Al Gore, his fixation on one or two counties in Florida is not all his fault. The Vice President and his campaign are contending with something known simply as anchoring. We see anchoring most often in negotiation, thinking, and debate. Anchoring is simply a first or early impression that sticks. Consider the negotiator that walks into a room to negotiate a multimillion dollar deal and comments about flooding in China. "Did you see the news. Six million people displaced. I can't even imagine a number that high." The business discussion has not even started, but the anchoring process has. The other negotiating team may have come to the table with aspirations of a ten or twelve million dollar deal, but this casual comment has been used to deflate expectations of the other team. The final outcome is far from settled, but one side has likely had their expectations adjusted.

In Parallel Thinking, taught using the Six Thinking Hats^®, we know that emotion and intuition are essential parts of thinking. When we tie emotion to logic, we are reluctant to change our position, and often become defensive and unwilling to consider other alternatives. By separating our emotion from our logic, we are able to express both and change how we feel and listen to other options. When we make no deliberate effort to separate the elements of the thinking process, we are often anchored to our original position and what follows is more argument than thinking.

In debate, one speaker can evade the question of his opponent by first anchoring his remarks in a comment that has a negative antecedent for his opponent. "Here we go again" was used most effectively by the great communicator, Ronald Reagan. President Reagan would make valid points in his own argument, but often preceded them with this phrase to prematurely diminish the value of the other speaker's comments. He used anchoring to change expectations.

What does all of this have to do with Al Gore. On November 7^th of this year, both George W. Bush and Al Gore knew they were in the fight to be the next Chief Executive. Early in the evening, the major television networks forecast that Florida's 25 electoral votes would go to Al Gore. Whether this was responsible journalism or not is another issue. Vice President Gore's expectations of victory were established early Tuesday evening. These forecasts were anchoring. Should Candidate Gore have tempered these reports with caution--of course--but the network declaration of a Florida victory followed closely by two other swing states solidified this expectation. Though not intentional, it was anchoring. The Bush campaign rode the emotional roller coaster as well, but knew that their votes would come in small increments across a larger section of the nation. They remained optimistic, but patient.

I can understand why the Gore camp is supporting an assault of the election process via the courts. Mr. Gore's victory expectations preclude him from seeing the national perspective, historical perspective, or any other perspective other than victory. This is understandable, but is untenable as a defense. I admire his team's fighting spirit, their ability to quickly muster resources and bring them to bear in isolated areas in Florida, and their will to win. Unfortunately, the best the Gore camp can hope for is a Pyrrhic victory with the Constitution and the election process impaled on this battlefield.

The Bush camp has been taking the moral high ground thus far. If the current trend continues, Governor Bush will have one of the toughest decisions of his life before him. If the Gore camp and their Florida surrogates are successful in somehow obtaining a new vote or manipulating the current vote to their favor, the Governor must decide whether to pursue a level playing field nationally. This would mean recounts and challenges in other states where the vote was close or in those that have typically turned a blind eye to a Democratic Party machine at work. This would grind this year's election process to a halt as no precinct's performance would hold up under the scrutiny currently applied in Florida. His other alternative would be to concede to Mr. Gore, effectively giving tacit consent to a Coup d'etat.

Can we improve the voting process--of course we can. Machine readers could immediately reject a ballot that would be tossed out for double punching and the voter would be told that he could cast a new ballot right then. Our high tech society could produce a windows-based ballot that replied to a voter with a dialogue box that confirmed his choice. "You have voted for the Bush-Cheney Electors. Is that correct. Yes or No." Software engineers have a strange sense of humor and could even include some dialogue boxes that read, "Pay Attention! You only get one vote for President." Voters could even be given a receipt that they could take with them so they would have no doubts about how they cast their ballot. There are many more viable alternatives to improve the process and if we still have a republic based in democracy when the dust settles; I'm sure voting commissions in every state will rethink and revise the voting process for future elections.

For now, we need two presidential candidates that demonstrate presidential leadership capacity. I understand Mr. Gore's fixation on winning, but believe that it belies reality. I can empathize and sympathize with him, but if he can only perceive the election from the perspective of what's good for him; I don't want his finger on our nuclear trigger.

The preceding discourse is not based in psychology or sociology. I make no pretense of significant experience or expertise in those areas. It is an analysis based upon teaching, training, certification, and experience in the areas of negotiation, thinking skills, and political science. I welcome comments from other areas of expertise that confirm, refute, or offer other perspectives. I hope that this is only the beginning of the discussion.

I've had my fill of spin doctors, partisan talking heads, and articles on this mess in Florida. I've already contributed my share to that final category and much like the vote counting in Palm County, see no reason to stop now. One comment that I have encountered, is "What is the Bush Camp thinking?" I'll take my best shot at answering this question. I feel that I am qualified to answer this simply because I live in Western Oklahoma and during the summer the south wind picks up much of the State of Texas and blows it onto my front porch. First, let me present my biases and dispositions so that if you have not read my articles before, you can apply as many grains of salt as you believe the recipe requires. I am a Republican that voted for the Bush-Cheney ticket. I consider myself a middle of the road conservative that believes in the strict interpretation of the Constitution. Had Gore won the election, I would have expected the Republican leadership in Congress to work with him (and Gore with them) to find solutions to our major problems and common ground directions for this country. I think we have a pretty good system of government and know that if I don't like the outcome of this election, I can always work harder to change the composition of the Congress every two years and the Presidency every four. I am disgusted with the post election conduct of the Gore campaign. That said, I'll get back to the original question, "What is the Bush Camp thinking?"

After some loud campaigning after the election by the Gore camp (We won the nation-wide popular vote so there is no way that the Florida voters could think any differently), they found themselves politically vulnerable as being perceived as the "bad guy" in the court of public opinion. In a truly Machiavellian move, the Gore campaign continued their national campaign to present what they believed were the merits of their argument, but reduced their visibility in Florida court actions. The Florida courts probably wouldn't give either national campaign standing anyway, but may have to address actions from local residents, mainly in Palm County. Make no mistake about it though, those initiating the actions are only surrogates of the national campaign. The stakes are high and Gore is sending in the lawyers much like LBJ sent advisors to Vietnam--by battalions. The Bush team initially took the high ground and said let's be patient and let the system work. This seemed like a viable course of action, except that all of the recounts have been focused where the Gore camp wants them. Now the clock is running against the Bush Camp. If at the last minute on whatever recount, a count should turn in Gore's favor, the Gore camp can say "we're ahead" and the Florida Election Board will not have time to recount the heavily Republican areas in the state with the same frequency before the Florida deadline. I doubt that the Bush action to request a Federal Court to enjoin the State from never-ending recounts was among their top ten courses of action. The Bush folks are trying to do everything possible not to turn the country upside down by requesting investigations and recounts for every report of voting irregularity in the country. I'm reminded of the tears held back in the eyes of James Baker in our last ditch effort to get Saddam to pull out of Kuwait without U.S. military action. Baker knew the consequences not only for the United States, but for the world because of one man's will to have his own way. Secretary Baker is once again trying to bring a civilized solution to a tough situation, except this time Saddam is on the sidelines laughing and enjoying the show. Gore has issued the win at all cost orders to his surrogates in Florida. Bush must now decide whether to engage in this battle or surrender the country. The request for injunction was a last ditch effort to keep all of us from that battle. That's what I think the Bush Camp is thinking.

For those of you familiar with the Abilene Paradox, the country is on the road to Abilene at this very moment. The crux of this paradox comes from the inability of groups and organizations [and sometimes individuals] to manage agreement, not the inability to manage conflict. We are all boarding the bus to Abilene right now and it's a non-stop trip.

*********************************************************************************************

The Abilene Paradox, by Jerry Harvey, Ph.D. ISBN 0-7879-0277-2

The Abilene Paradox is the inability of groups and organizations to manage agreement--not the inability to manage conflict.

Symptoms

Members individually agree in private about the situation.
Members agree in private about the logical next steps to cope with the situation.
Members do not communicate what they really believe to one another; thus leading to a collective misperception about the collective reality.
Based upon this collective misperception, group members take action contrary to what they want to due, with results counterproductive to the group's intent and purpose.
As a result of the counterproductive effort, subgroups are formed and the politics of blame follow.
If the organization does not deal with the paradox, the cycle repeats itself for every issue.

^{Presidential Job
Interview}

^{The 100 Days War}

Enough of the counting, recounting, hand counting, law suits, second guessing--and after a recount--third guessing, calls to abolish the electoral college, and media coverage turned soap opera; I'm ready to discuss some lessons learned that don't focus on the Florida Follies. I want to take another look at what goes on before Election Day.

Traditionally, there is some political posturing at least two years before the presidential election. This generally produces a handful of hopefuls in both major parties, with third parties always coming late to the game. About a year before the election, the political machines of the candidates gear up for the final run. Caucuses, primaries, debates, television coverage, and television ads shape what we know about the candidates. Convention coverage is followed by barnstorming, more debates, and more barnstorming. Websites and emails abound with political campaign messages, and in early November, we are asked to select the President of the United States. What's wrong with this picture?

First, we are hiring someone for arguably the most powerful job in the world, and we're still not sure what's on his resume. We have also never conducted a job interview. Sure, some of the debates are in a format that resembles a town meeting, but the questions are usually dismissed and the candidates gravitate back to more familiar ground from their stump speeches. I propose job interviews for our presidential candidates. It's an ambitious proposal that I call the 100 Days War.

The 100 Days War

Let's examine a basic framework for these interviews. Each candidate will prepare a one page resume by January of the election year. Each of the fifty states will be assigned one day to conduct their interview. Interviewers will be selected by social security account number beginning with a random selection of the last digit. The random selection would continue from this population for the next to the last digit, then the next digit, and so forth until the size of the group was reduced to twenty or fewer interviewers. Eligibility to be an interviewer would require a valid SSAN and an attained age of 14 at the time of the selection (people who are eligible to vote or would become eligible during the term of office). Random selection of account numbers has no respect for party affiliation, age, gender, race, or social status.

The interview team would meet and decide upon questions to ask each applicant a few days before the interview. Questions would follow the general conventions of a job interview by sticking to factors that pertain to performing the job. The order of interviewing candidates would be determined once again by random and candidates will be interviewed individually by the panel. Interviews would be no more than thirty minutes and no television coverage would be permitted. At the end of the last interview, the interviewers would meet and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each applicant and then rank them as a human resources director would for the hiring officials--registered voters. The following day a brief synopsis would be made public through various media and ultimately posted on the 100 Days War Website, which would pay for itself--and probably a few charitable causes--by selling ad space.

To obtain an interview, a candidate must have filed for office and submitted his or her single page resume. No supplemental material may be attached to the resume. Resumes may be in any paper format, but no enhancement devices should be required to read the information it contains. That is, if a candidate has to use a 6 font to get all of the information on one page, the panel may not be able to read it. Each candidate must personally appear before the interview board. No substitutions and no rescheduled appointments must be the rule.

What advantages would this system have over our current process? It will certainly make evading a question difficult. There is no television audience to refocus upon with standard tag lines or anecdotes about students without desks. If the panel feels the candidate evaded the question, they are free to say so in their report. Such a method also relieves the candidates of presenting the perfection image. In a job interview, it is appropriate to pause momentarily to think. Now there's a noble concept in itself, asking candidates to think instead of recite. While this approach appears to corner the candidates, it also liberates them. It also gives us a different filter through which to see our potential new hires. Television commentators do the best they can to present an unbiased look at the candidates, but much like the candidates they follow on the campaign trail, they get only glimpses of mainstream America.

No system is without its drawbacks. What makes the system so appealing also brings some risk to the table. We don't know who will be asking the questions and from what backgrounds they come. We also do not know the biases and predispositions of the people who would be empanelled for these interviews. Their communication skills may not be the best or may contain unfamiliar metaphors. "That Medicare plan is like getting passed by three cattle trucks on I-40 in August." Yes, of the approximately 1000 people ultimately selected as interviewer, there's a chance that one or two of them may not speak English. Most people will get the general message, but specific strengths and weaknesses may lie as much in the interviewer's interpretation as it does in the applicant's presentation. I do believe that over the course of 50 interviews and 50 diverse reports, we could get a little better picture of who we wanted to hire.

Such a proposal would never replace traditional campaigning, but it could certainly augment it. Reports of interviews would certainly add a few grains of salt to the standard party lines. Third party candidates might even gain a greater voice via this venue. There are many more details to be considered, such as the order of the state interviews. I think we should try it alphabetically for 2004. If nothing else, we could send anyone who thinks they have the mettle to be President to Alaska in January.

I'll add my comments to the growing body of discourse on the hand counting and machine counting of ballots. While the clamor of partisan rhetoric would seem to belie this; both parties are asking for exactly the same thing--fidelity. Fidelity is simply faithfulness to the original. Is it live or is it Memorex? In the acoustics world, fidelity is a never ending quest. In the past twenty years, simulation has move to the forefront of the fidelity quest. Let's look at machine counting and hand counting from the perspective of fidelity.

For this discussion, I must dismiss those ballots that were spoiled through double punching and stick strictly to the accurate counting of properly cast ballots. This does not dismiss the issue of whether those ballots have other merit. It only saves that controversy for another discussion. Let's first examine machine counting. Any machine that is used for measurement must be calibrated. That is, the accuracy of the measuring machine must be measured on a recurring basis and when the machine exceeds the prescribed tolerances for error, it must be removed from service, repaired, or replaced. This is fundamental to fidelity. In the Florida equation, the state's responsibility is to ensure this fidelity through diligent calibration of its equipment. Testing and calibration do have limits in vote counting scenarios. While the machine will likely perform at a constant standard; the ballot may become a confounding factor. Ballots counted two or three times may become worn and spoiled for future counts. The standards required for the ballots are likely less rigid than those for the readers.

Next let's take a look at hand counting. Hand counting of ballots designed to be counted by hand has obvious advantages. Even our best scanners often misread characters. For such ballots hand counting offers the greatest chance of fidelity. One inherent flaw in hand counting is that people can't be calibrated, not that I especially care to change that fact. Absent calibration, hand counts must be done repeatedly to determine means and modes. Hopefully this average return or the most repeated return actually reflects the candidate that actually received the most votes. People are subject not only to bias, but to factors of focus and fatigue. Consider the television industry. Twenty years ago, a one hour television show might have two or three commercial breaks. Today, the focus of the American viewer is about seven to eight minutes. As a professional trainer, instruction that I deliver must employ a significant change of mode every ten minutes or I risk losing the attention of those in the class. We just don't focus well on sustained tasks. Thus far, we have examined hand counts solely from the perspective of ballots designed to be read by people. When we ask people to read ballots designed to be read by machine, the difficulty factor is dramatically increased as is the probability for error.

How then, can there be such an outcry demanding a hand count? Once again, the answer lies in fidelity. We trust people. We would much rather have people determine our destiny than a machine. In the simulation industry, this is called emotional fidelity. If you have been to Disney or Universal Studios in the past ten years you have been exposed to emotional fidelity. The rides that employ virtual reality and sensory enhancement are using emotional fidelity. They make you feel like you are falling hundreds of feet by graphics and vibration, when actually the actual range of motion is two or three feet. Simulators are also used widely in the armed forces. These simulators focus on skill transfer fidelity. If the tank gunner properly ranged, sighted, and fired, he would hit the target in accordance with the actual probability of kill. Simulators used for training purposes often cannot afford the frills associated with emotional fidelity. They are built for the singular purpose of skill transfer.

I'm not suggesting that voting is simulation. It's the real thing. It's how we peacefully transfer power in this country. I will suggest that the demand for hand counts is rooted in emotion. It will make most of us feel better about the outcome. The problem is that while we may feel better, we have a greater chance of making significant errors. We could be feeling very good about electing the man that came in second place.

I considered concluding this article as only a comparative piece on vote counting without political commentary. I will continue it to satisfy my own emotional nature. Both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore have teams of advisors that should have presented such similar comparisons. This leaves the Vice President in a precarious position. Either he has ignored some of these facts before insisting on recounts or he is deliberately exploiting the emotional nature of the American voter. I don't know which is worse, ignorant or manipulative.

Our emotions tell us not to trust the machine count. Our intellect should tell us to validate that the counting machines were properly calibrated, and accept their totals. Now there's a paradox for this election--George W. taking the intellectual high ground. Who'd a thunk it?

^{Full Speed Ahead}

You're late for the meeting of your life. You have worked the last two years to deliver this presentation that will certainly vault you to the top in your field. Unfortunately you are driving through a residential neighborhood with 35 Mile Per Hour Signs. Three blocks to your left is an interstate highway system with a speed limit of 70 miles per hour. You decide to proceed on your current course that leads directly to your destination and start accelerating.

You're focused on getting to where you need to be when you see flashing lights on your tail. You know that you passed the authorized speed about a block ago, but can't really afford to stop for these flashing lights on the law enforcement vehicle. You call 911 and asked to be patched in directly to the law enforcement agent that is pursuing you. Seconds later the connection is made and the officer tells you to pull over. You continue driving and tell the officer that you can't stop but have set up a three way call with the traffic judge.

When the judge comes on the line, he immediately tells the officer not to stop the car until he has heard from both sides. You tell the judge of the magnitude of the situation and how important it is that you reach your destination. Your reasons are compelling. The officer reluctantly consents to this high speed hearing. He first reminds the judge that the speed limit is 35 miles per hour and that the city council spent twenty weeks conducting sight surveys, safety hearings, and comparative studies before deciding on this speed limit. The council believed that they had adequately provided for the needs of the community to expeditiously commute while ensuring a reasonable level of safety. The town council also reminded everyone if they didn't like the speed limit, they could use the interstate that was a maximum of seven blocks from any residential road in the community. While not mentioned in the local ordinance, the town newspaper provided an editorial that praised the decisions of the council, but concurrently reminded citizens if they were not content with the ordinance, that they could elect different council men and women that were more in line with their views.

You jump back into the discussion and remind the judge that three blocks to your left is an interstate that permits travel at seventy miles an hour and that the city ordinances are in conflict. The officer reminds the judge that three blocks to your left is such a venue for high speed travel and that the two speed limits stand in perfect harmony.

You ask the judge for an alternate speed limit that will permit you to get to your destination and have a fair chance at success.

The officer replies that for the judge to set a new speed limit in the middle of this high speed pursuit not only steps on his authority to enforce the law, but second guesses the council that established the speed limit.

The judge puts you both on hold and the high speed chase continues with considerable anxiety by both parties. Residents are now lining the streets holding up signs. On one side of the street, the signs read: 35 MPH Unfair. The other side holds up signs that read: 35 MPH Saves Lives.

The judge comes back on the line and announces that the speed limit is not to be enforced and instructs the officer to discontinue his pursuit and provide an escort to the speeding vehicle. He further orders that he will permit this high speed run to continue only for another 20 minutes. You quickly pull up the calculator on your cell phone and enter the time available and distance remaining and discover that you must accelerate to 140 MPH to get to your destination on time. The judge offers some additional counsel that while he will not establish a new speed limit--as that is the city council's job--everyone is to drive safely.

You step on the gas and peg the accelerator wishing that you had taken the Corvette instead of the Explorer when you left home. School lets out in ten minutes and you hope somebody has the sense to look out for the safety of those children.

The Florida Supreme Court decision did not surprise me. It disappointed me, but was to be expected. I would hope that if the Supreme Court of the United States were to accept this case, they would reverse this dangerous ruling. I don't believe that the Florida court's decision was partisan despite the makeup of its members. The decision was reflective of the philosophy of the court's composition. That has been one of the root issues of the two major campaigns, though it was adequately disguised only in the language of Roe v. Wade. Conservative courts tend to leave legislation to the legislature. Liberal courts frequently write legislation from the bench. Courts of either composition will provide remedies in equity, where no legislation has been provided.

This is not a new development. We didn't build our country in an international vacuum. The roots of our history go back at least a thousand years and reflect nearly every aspect of our legal and governing philosophy. Common law was made by judges. Power was wrestled from monarchs by legislatures, if not by outright revolt. Our founding fathers saw the value of separating executive, legislative, and judicial functions. This separation and balance of governing powers survive based upon respect for each branch by the others. The ventures of one branch into the authority of another always place this delicate balance at risk. Conservative courts practice what is known to most people as "tough love." They may not create a remedy for every case. By their refusal to do so, they have told the legislative and executive branches that they will neither subsidize their inefficiency nor supplant their authority. Such courts are as popular as a parent that gives his children a curfew. Liberal courts practice instant gratification. If a petitioner comes before them, they will do everything possible to provide some sort of relief, even if that means usurping authority from the other two branches. Such courts are popular parents until their child ends up in jail for using crack. Then they tell the other two parents to come up with a solution.

Both courts will create selective injustices by their action or inaction. This system is a strange families indeed as there appear to be three parents that seek extremes. Such extremes can exist in harmony, but only if each respects the other. The executive must enforce the decisions of the legislature and the judicial branches. The judicial must give all presumption of valid intent to the executive and legislative branches. When one steps significantly into the domain of another, the harmony and balance is lost.

Some would argue that the Florida Supreme Court had no choice but to act as it did--that the law was contradictory and offered no remedy. The contrary is clearly evident in the statutes before the court. Seven days was not arbitrary. Consider the allocation of time between a senior and his subordinates that is commonly called the One-Third, Two-Thirds rule. No more than one-third of the available time should be used by the senior so that at least two thirds of the time remains available to his subordinates and their subordinates. This is basic leadership. The legislature and the executive branches live in this domain on a daily basis. Well crafted laws and orders require compelling deadlines early in any process so that time is available for other actions and remedies in the process. Only extraordinary events should be considered in altering these deadlines. The extraordinary stakes of the contest should have no standing in altering these deadlines. In fact, the high stakes of the election were best served by strict adherence to the deadline so that the full time that the legislature had provided for remedies would be provided. The Florida Supreme Court is the least experienced of the branches in the allocation of time and resources. By legislating from the bench, it may have precluded the execution of the very law it was intending to enhance.

There are plenty of curves in the road ahead. Each of the parents in this strange family that is our government is taking turns driving. As each takes his or her turn at the wheel, they receive plenty of advice from the other two in the back seat. They are also reminded of the fact that they have a bumper sticker on their vehicles that reads: How's my driving. Call 1-776-AMERICA. The phones are ringing off the hook, we're driving at 140 MPH, and everyone is scrambling for their Constitutional map. Buckle Up!

Disclaimer: I don't know if there is a 1-776-America telephone number and it is used only in this metaphorical context.

^{Continental Divide}

Among the more intangible of arguments that pervade discussions of electoral and popular votes, the will of the people and the rule of law, and statutory and judicially imposed deadlines, is that of where we stand as Americans. Are we truly divided or are we really only a few issues apart in a middle of the road philosophy? Much like this November, this one is too close to call.

Candidates, party leaders, and freelance activists find themselves drawn to extreme positions. This is a natural course of events and should not surprise anyone. Basic rules of negotiation apply. An easy concession by one side raises aspiration levels of the other. Spin doctors and talking heads try to shape public perception while news commentators try to unravel the spin so as to produce news. The former are much more adept at their trade than the latter, and they do have a socializing effect on Americans.

We are a nation that must go to commercial every seven to eight minutes. Our attention span is short and we have no appetite for detailed and methodical discourse. We have been fed tag lines, icons, and twenty second sound bites for so long that we have an entire generation of young adults that have never been exposed to anything else. We cling to what is familiar: Bush, Gore, Tax Cut, Right to Chose. In times of controversy we rally behind our man or our cause, but seldom does our understanding of the issues equate to our passion.

It is our passion that divides us. The will to win, whether in man or action, is the root of survival. No one would expect a linebacker to go easy on a running back out of a sense of fairness. No quarterback would hold the ball while he waited for the safety to catch up with his receiver. We play our sports and our politics with the passion of Vince Lombardi.

It is our understanding that will eventually bring us together. Our understanding of the men and the issues in front of our nation will reveal that on most issues we are fairly close together. When the emotions of the contest subside, we will clearly see that neither man nor party came equipped with all of the answers. They touted basic philosophies with first draft programs attached. Sure, there are big issues. Abortion is perhaps the most divisive. Candidates tread as lightly as possible on this issue during the campaign for fear of alienating voters. It is not likely to be resolved by either a Bush or a Gore administration. Other issues, such as Social Security, Medicare, and fiscal husbandry will likely receive the due immediacy that they deserve. Either through reasoned consensus or partisan compromise, Congress and the President will act on these meat and potatoes issues.

As with anything in politics, there is the unwanted caveat. That qualifier is bitterness. Bitterness overshadows both passion and understanding and produces undercurrents of dissent even in agreement. It is in the area of bitterness where politicians must follow the example of the sportsman. Whenever the final gun sounds, all of the players must walk across the field and congratulate their opponents on a hard fought contest. Passion must be postponed to the next contest and acrimony must be abandon on the playing field. Vindictive winners and foul crying losers have no place in the realm of patriots.

The real question is not whether we should rally behind whatever administration is charged with leading, but how. Politics is a game with many rules and as many ways around them. Politics is a tough game meant to be played with passion. There is no off season in politics. Does this mean that we are doomed to a season of bitterness? I don't think so. The media can play a huge role in eliminating undying acrimony. Yes, I'm talking about the same media that blew the calls on election night and is now struggling with justification, denial, and self-examination of its role. It's time for television networks to bring back the editorial. The editorial still has safe haven in the print medium, but often drifts from issue to issue. If the press truly is the watchdog of government, it should focus much of its commentary on post election bitterness. Where bitterness is discovered, editorials should expose it for what it is--a poison working its way into the blood of Americans.

I'm not advocating a break from politics or ignoring important issues that won't be adequately addressed in the next two or four years. Those that want to get their dog in the fight in 2002 or 2004 should be hard at work right now. Issues of absentee ballots and voting machines should be at the forefront of public discussion. Grassroots efforts to move the country in a more liberal or conservative direction must already be in the works to have any momentum by the next election; however, claims and rhetoric of an illegitimate presidency or a stolen election must stop once transition begins in earnest. The longer the legal battles over Florida's votes continue, the tougher this task will be. Instead of complaining about the increased difficulty, we should be preparing for it. When it's over, it's over and an ever watchful media can temper post decision rhetoric with editorials that condemn tactics of poison rhetoric wherever it finds them.

While I would personally like to see Vice President Gore move quickly to a concession speech; I am a product of the generation whose expectations were tempered by the Heidi Game. Last minute reversals of fortune do happen. If the Vice President is going to stay in the fight for the presidency, he must fight with passion. I don't like his decision, but I do understand it. If he somehow pulls off an upset, will I be angry? You bet I will. I'll be angry, disappointed, and feel like I was cheated; but I will get over it quickly. I'll gladly trade my acrimonious tones for gentle sarcasm usually involving the word lock box or father of the Internet. I'll also insist that my Republican representatives find the common ground with their Democratic counterparts and find solutions to issues to a lion's share of today's issues. I'll expect reciprocal professionalism.

We have spent most of November ridiculing ourselves for being a high tech nation with low tech voting machines, for having not yet produced a president in the fourth week after the election, and most of all for attacking those in the spotlight based solely upon their party affiliation. These shots fired in anger will pale in significance to what we do in the coming weeks. We must leave bitterness and acrimony on the playing field of politics and emerge from this contest with patriotism. We are only a nation divided if we chose to be.

I re-read an old favorite of mine while waiting to see how the election will finally be resolved. I guess you would call it a political thriller, though some might not find it so exciting. It doesn't have the high tech warfare you might find in a Tom Clancy novel, but it is set forth in a time like our own when the political situation is somewhat tenuous. There has been significant battle and bloodshed to this point, but the real struggle is more Machiavellian in nature. I doubt that you will see this one in movie form. Harrison Ford, Brad Pitt, and Demi Moore are not knocking at the door for lead roles. This work would just be too tough to cast. While the power struggle remains the same, the cast involved in that struggle changes too frequently to accommodate Hollywood egos and budgets. This is one of those classics where the struggle itself is much greater than any single protagonist or villain. It has a certain Shakespearean allure not only because of the intricacies of the power struggle, but because like the English Playwright's works, there is some question as to whether or not this one has a single author.

A good work always has conflict. A great work intricately ties in not only a struggle between good and evil, but struggles among noble causes as well. Quests for perfection, justice, or tranquility cause the reader to yearn for the next line or next page with the same or even greater anxiousness contained in a well spun mystery. Shared existential risk balanced against noble ideas such as protecting the welfare of others--even the liberty of another generation--increases the drama of each successive word. You won't buy the Cliff's Notes for this one. The commentaries and reviews far exceed the length of the work itself. You will, however, remember a line or two from this one, whether you have read it or not. It begins, "We The People…"

Yes, this political thriller is the Constitution of the United States of America. It is about a struggle for power, and like most political thrillers, that struggle is established by the authors themselves. The authors recognized that power was indeed a corrupting force. Power vested in a single man or woman could be used to promote domestic tranquility, or just as capriciously could be used to enslave the governed. In this good versus evil genre, the authors knew that no single individual could overcome the temptations of power. Their noble causes of domestic tranquility, common defense, and securing the blessing of liberty required that power not be permitted to consolidate in a single individual. They set up accommodations for continued power struggles and inefficiency and by so doing offered no lodging for tyranny.

Our republic is based upon democratic premises tempered with state's rights. The safeguards of the Constitution are vested in separation of powers not only at the federal level, but between the federal government and the states, with still more rights or liberties reserved directly to the people. The more perfect union is a union of separate states. The Electoral College may appear to be archaic, but it is representative of the distributive nature of power allocation in our system. The Constitution is not a model designed for efficiency. Instead, it is designed for the preservation of representative government.