The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-03-14
CONCERNING THE PRESERVATION
OF BALLOTS.

-~---~~~O TX
A more or less esteemed contemporary
has taken occasion several times since
the count-cut of last Monday night to
assert with great positiveness that the
lesson of that affair is that the ballots
should be preserved, SO that recount
may be had, and, we understand, that on
account of this affair provision has
been added to the amendments to the
Australian ballot law now pending in the
legislature making such preservation
compulsory.
The PRESS dissents entirely from this
view. The lesson of the affair Of Mon
day night is that the counting should be
done by capable and honest representa-
tives of all the parties in interest. The
trouble of Monday arose from the fact
that the ballots were counted by the rep
resentative of single party, who was
neither capable nor honest.
A system of counting is demanded,
which shall return first, results that are
honest and accurate, and second, re-
suits that the people believe are honest
and accurate. To secure these results it
is essential first that the ballots should
be counted Immediately after the polls
are closed and before there is any OPP
portunity to manipulate them; second,
that all the parties represented by the
ballots should have competent repre-
sentative either to take part in the count
ing or to watch it; third, that the ballots
should be counted in the face and eyes
OF the public, that is, in open town
meeting. 1t is almost inconceivable that
the counting of ballots under these cir
cumstances can fail to produce an hon
est and correct result, or a result which
the public will not believe to be honest
and correct. When the ballots are
counted under these safeguards a re-
count will, it seems to us, be superfiu
Gus, and not only that, but mischievous.
If the recount tallies with the first count
all it will have done will be to confirm
something which did not need confirma
ton. If it disagrees nobody will regard
it as more honest or more accurate than
the first count. On the contrary the first
count will be likely to have the prefer
ence in these respects, and for
very substantial reasons. The first count
will have been made before there was
any opportunity to tamper with the
ballots without discovery; the second
count will have been made after days or
weeks have passed, during which time
the ballots have been out of the public
view. The first count will have been
made when it is not definitely known
how many votes one party has cast in ex-
cess of the other, and when, therefore,
it is not definitely known how many votes
must be changed to alter the result. The
second count will be made when all these
things are known exactly. Before the
second count there will have been
to make changes and
the knowledge of what changes
to make, both of which were in
a large measure, if not entirely, absent
from the first count. The only possible
in favor of recount is that
the first count may be dishonest or mac
curate, and the second count will correct
this dishonesty and inaccuracy. To be
effective then the second count must be
made under circumstances more condu-
Give to accuracy and less conducive to
dishonesty. Something must inspire
more confidence in the second count
than in the first. Yet it seems quite
clear that the circumstances surround
ing a recount will be such as to inspire
less confidence instead of more. Ele-
ments of. distrust surrounding the second
count will be time and suspected oppor-
tunity to fix things, exact knowledge
how to fix things, and frequently strong
party pressure to fix things.