Really Scott? Really?

Based upon feedback on the previous post from someone whose judgment I trust implicitly and whose opinion I value greatly, I want to briefly clarify a point I attempted to make.

There is nothing acceptable or excusable about an election that is mismanaged, rife with errors and which creates doubt about the outcome of the vote. A poorly conducted election in one jurisdiction has immediate short-term and long-term repercussions for other jurisdictions; there is a decrease in confidence by the public, increased scrutiny by the media and legislatures inevitably pass new laws to solve isolated problems of the past. Put more plainly, when errors occur; the public is outraged that their vote may not have been counted, the losers are not convinced they lost, the media has a heyday and political leaders sanctimoniously pontificate and then legislate.

As a result, it is understandable for election officials to conscientiously set a high yet unobtainable standard of perfection and to choose not to see or admit to ever falling short of that standard. The price is too high. Yet the adoption of this seemingly noble and highly responsible standard -perfection- has two paradoxically negative and unanticipated outcomes. First, it reinforces an unreasonable and unattainable expectation, among the public, media and politicians, that an election is only acceptably “good” when conducted without issues or errors. Second, the façade of perfection often adopted by election administrators truncates the feedback loop that is a necessary part of the cycle of learning and improving.

The personal cost of publically acknowledging “learning moments” can be unnecessarily high and painful. The unrecognized organizational cost of ignoring or hiding the “learning moments” is even higher.

Back to the point I want to clarify; errors and mistakes in elections seldom affect the outcomes and should not be considered inherently fatal to acknowledge. The healthy and constructive approach, which I am advocating working toward, is one in which it is safe to acknowledge mistakes and failures for the purpose of learning and improving from them. To do otherwise casts unjustified suspicion on elections and election administrators and inhibits a culture of continuous learning and improvement from which the profession can greatly benefit.

In many ways, this clarifying post is a case study in the learning and improvement cycle I have tried to describe above.

Stay tuned.


3 thoughts on “Really Scott? Really?

  1. I don’t think you have solved the point of view problem.

    “Ambiguity” to whom? One person’s ambiguity might be another person’s “good enough.” (Notice I didn’t say “good enough for government work”)

    In Accuracy vs Precision you listed over a dozen typical election administration problems. Then you said, The presence, itself, of any one or more of these examples does not prevent an election from being judged as “good.” That may be good enough for you, but what about Mr. Bellman? How much of this stuff could he tolerate before exclaiming “this election is a bummer!”?

    The capacity of individuals to tolerate “ambiguity” varies.

    You: An election cannot be considered “good” when the effect of these situations introduces doubt and ambiguity and raises questions that cannot be adequately addressed.

    Same problems w/ “adequately addressed.” Adequate to whom?

    What’s a “good” anything has to be either left to individual opinion, or in society based on consensus. If the latter, then consensus can be voluntary or compelled, or something in between. In relation to social stability, a good election is one that elites and activists will let pass w/o rebellion. JFK’s election was good for that reason. But suppose Mayor Daily announced before Inauguration Day that, working w/ the Mob, JFK owed the victory to him? Bush v Gore was a “good” election. Sure, some folks will say it wasn’t. But the mass consensus was that protesting the result wasn’t worth leaving one’s couch. Ergo: a Good election is a tolerated election.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s