In the closest presidential election in American history, every chad counts. The closeness of this election--and the significant chance that simple errors may have changed the outcome--require an examination of how America could have avoided the personal and mechanical failures that lead to the current fiasco.

It is only at times of great humiliation in American life that we consider the examples of other countries--and the situation must be even worse before we look to Canada. Yet despite the fact that its significantly smaller population makes national elections much more manageable than in the U.S., some elements of the election system of our neighbor to the north are worth pointing out.

Nationwide, Canadian candidates appear in the same order on the ballots. This enables national newspapers as well as TV stations to show the ballots well in advance of the actual election day, reducing a chance that a confusing Palm Beach County ballot could sway an election. Another feature of the Canadian election system is that no precincts are larger than 500 people, making hand-counts and possible recounts much more viable.

Establishing such a nation-wide standard in the U.S. would raise issues of federalism and states' rights, but it should at least be possible to have ballots standardized at the state level. The Republicans' argument that manual recount standards are uneven is exacerbated by the fact that the types of ballots and voting systems can vary widely from county to county. Some areas, such as now-infamous Palm Beach County, still use punch-card systems from the mid-1970s, while others have long since switched to more reliable optical scanner technologies. A standard system will encourage uniform procedures and heighten confidence in the outcome should manual recounts again be necessary.

Standardization will also enable counties to upgrade their equipment to the same, relatively high standards. Given that voting machinery is not high on the priority list of cash-strapped communities, disproportionately more problems arose at this past election in low-income communities with mostly outdated voting equipment.

No influence of money in politics could be more nefarious than antiquated machines preventing citizens in poorer areas from having their votes counted, and the Democratic Party and Vice President Al Gore '69 may rightfully feel aggrieved that many of their supporters were denied the right to vote.

Although electronic systems have received the most media attention in the aftermath of the election, voting machines need neither be computerized nor expensive. A number of mechanical systems exist that make it virtually impossible to vote for two candidates simultaneously and that allow voters to see easily whether they have not chosen any candidate.

Regardless of the technology employed, improved training for election personnel would also help avoid situations like that in Palm Beach County, where election overseers were often just as unsure of the proper procedures as voters.