Nation still awaits results
of presidential election
By Laura Pelner
and Erica
Sagon
The presidential election has the nation holding
its collective breath and has shocked even some of Purdue’s most
politically aware professors.
After some media declared Republican candidate
Gov. George W. Bush the winner of the presidential race over his Democratic
opponent Vice President Al Gore early Wednesday morning, the statement
was recanted following a decision regarding Florida’s final vote
count.
One professor said the events are unprecedented.
"Unbelievable is the word that comes to mind,"
said Glenn Sparks, a professor of communication. "I’m kind
of a political news junkie type — I’ve been watching these
things my whole life. Never in my wildest dreams did I think we’d
be facing this situation that we are now."
Henry Scheele, an associate professor of communication,
agreed that he has never seen a situation like this. "In my entire
lifetime I’ve never seen anything like this. I don’t see how
any election could get any closer."
James McCann, an associate professor in the political
science department, said that although the situation is shocking, it’s
really not as confusing or chaotic as it seems.
"We know exactly where things stand —
that we don’t have a winner yet. We know exactly what’s going
to happen — that they’re going to do a recount. The constitution
is crystal clear on how to proceed," said McCann. "What we
have are some interesting turns of events, and what that might imply
is in the eye of the beholder."
Both Scheele and Sparks agreed that there are many
factors contributing to the close race, which make it nearly impossible
to predict the outcome.
Sparks said one study he read attributed the nation’s
split vote to a time of economic prosperity and peace. "The American
people really had a difficult time trying to figure out which one of
these two guys was the best person to lead the country in a time when
we’re not facing any profound crisis," said Sparks.
In this election some voters were not clearly supportive
of either candidate. However, Sheele said this does not account for
the closeness of the race. "You can’t read anything into it
that voters are dissatisfied."
The Electoral College
Never mind the popular vote, never mind the fact
that Bush won more states. The deciding factor will be the crucial recount
of Florida’s electoral votes.
The Electoral College is a body of partisan voters
who cast the final vote and then elect the president. Since there are
538 total electoral votes, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to
win. Right now Gore has won the popular vote; however, Bush is expected
to take Florida’s electoral votes and the presidency.
If this transpires, it will be the third time in
history that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the presidency.
This scenario is causing some people to question if the Electoral College
process needs to be reformed.
"I think we can debate the wisdom of the system
(the Electoral College) after it’s all over. I guess right now
my perspective is that we knew what system we had when we started the
election and we should live by that," said Sparks.
Scheele agreed. "The Electoral College is
part of our system and people should regard it as a part of our Constitution.
It’s an ingenious system ... it’s the most dominant system.
We’ve kept that system for 200-plus years," said Scheele.
McCann said it is too soon to speculate whether
or not the Electoral College should be abolished but he did say the
electoral voters have a big responsibility. "Formally there is
nothing binding an Electoral College voter to vote for one candidate
or another," said McCann.
This means that even in a state that Bush won,
an electoral voter could vote for Gore and skew the projected results.
The media aspect
Throughout their election coverage, mass media
outlets made premature projections they later withdrew.
Early in the evening, experts projected that Gore
would win Florida, but they later recanted that decision and said Bush
had the state.
Sparks said, "It was alarming to me how ill-prepared
the networks seemed to be to tell us what was going on. Some of the
coverage was actually very poor."
Sparks added that the newspaper industry felt tremendous
pressure to declare a winner without the final announcement of who won.
Papers such as the New York Post and The Charleston
Gazette in W. Va. went to press with front pages declaring Bush’s
victory. Even some editions of Lafayette’s Journal and Courier
printed "Bush wins." The Journal and Courier revised its headline
later as more news came in.
Sparks said "They (newspapers) were relying
on the same data the networks were relying on, but given what had transpired
at that point in the evening one would’ve thought that they would
have been more careful. It does kind of reveal the pressure that journalists
feel to declare a winner."
|
