NationStates Jolt Archive

Is any one worried about this? Does the fact that the technology exists to give you a paper slip of your vote.. they don't seem to think it's important? Wouldn't want any nasty recounts now would we. You know while we are all screaming about "get out the vote" But have you forgot Katherine Harris so fast?

In fact, the guy who owns "Debold" said he would "Do any thing to get Bush re-elected.. (no appointments this time by the Supreme Court)

The only state that really seems to be getting this I believe is California.. but then again, California, New York etc do seem to be the leaders in a lot of stuff, probably based on a population base. None the less.. think about this..

http://bushflash.com/wmf/diebold.mp3

Not worried yet? Maybe you should be..

http://bushflash.com/lotto.html

*Disclaimer*

Of course this is not directed at Republicans given we DO realize you will be voting for Bush regardless.

my son was ranting about it the other day. i had to tell him to shut up about it. i dont know that its likely to really be a factor but the states certainly should make sure of what they are buying when they get these electronic systems

but then i live in new mexico where boxes of votes miraculously appear the day after all the votes have been counted

they already stole war hero Max Clelands seat in Georgia by the same method

Its not that easy to rig an election.

If the polls going into election day in California have Kerry ahead by 20% and Bush wins in a landslide, of course people will notice.

The whole electronic voting system is to avoid the hanging-chad dimpled-chad stuff that made Florida 2000 such a fiasco.

Luckily, the UK's record on government IT projects is so appalling, we will get it in 2025, five times over-budget, and the results will be inconclusive. :P

Its not that easy to rig an election.

If the polls going into election day in California have Kerry ahead by 20% and Bush wins in a landslide, of course people will notice.

The whole electronic voting system is to avoid the hanging-chad dimpled-chad stuff that made Florida 2000 such a fiasco.

I totally agree.. so why no paper trail then? Explain that for the group please? This makes sense how? Don't say they can't do it.. because they can. They've also proven they can be hacked.

Defend this system...

I don't think you can.

In Kansas we have the electronic voting and still a rep. and governor that were elected are democrats.

well.. as someone who isnt of votying age or in america, i think it really wont matter...assuming that the progrmers have done there job right and it wont go into an infinite loop any time anyone votes for bush :P

Its not that easy to rig an election.

If the polls going into election day in California have Kerry ahead by 20% and Bush wins in a landslide, of course people will notice.

The whole electronic voting system is to avoid the hanging-chad dimpled-chad stuff that made Florida 2000 such a fiasco.yeah and lead us directly into the problem of hackin the vote

Hmmm, funny. When George Soros pledges to spend his enormous fortune funding all sorts of groups to defeat GW Bush, it's called "freedom of speech" (Campaign Finance Reform laws be-damned.) When an entrepreneur pledges to do all he can to get Bush re-elected, suddenly it's a huge conflict of interest.

The truly funny part is, every county in Florida that had the legendary problems in 2000 (and in 2002, by the way,) were counties where the election process was run and designed by...c'mon, venture a guess...yes, the Dims. And of course, let's not forget that the more heavily Republican counties, in Northwest Florida (which happen to be in the Central Time Zone,) had artificially low turnouts in 2000, because the networks declared Gore the winner in Florida, while the voting precincts in those counties were still open.

Kathleen Harris was simply following the laws of the State of Florida in 2000. The Florida Supreme Court (heavily tilted to the Dim side) took it upon itself to invent new rules for counting "votes" in the affected counties. It came up to the United States Supreme Court to review the Law as written and decide.

Oh, by the way, almost every single recount after January 2001 (using every method imaginable, including the cockamamie methods designed by the Florida Supreme Court) yielded a Bush victory.

The electronic voting eliminates some of the problems of regular voting, but in doing so creates some of it's own. Overall though I'd say the electronic voting is probably a safer, faster, more reliable, and more efficient system. The only major problem with it would be hacking, but everyone knows that could be a major problem and their are so many woried about it that I don't think it will be. With all the scare around it, they are sure to implement layer upon layer of anti-hacker devices. Not to mention you still have to go to the booths, which in itself is an anti-tampering measure as there is some symblance of monitering.

Besides, it doesn't really matter how you vote or who you vote for anyways, the electorial college picks the president.

Hmmm, funny. When George Soros pledges to spend his enormous fortune funding all sorts of groups to defeat GW Bush, it's called "freedom of speech" (Campaign Finance Reform laws be-damned.) When an entrepreneur pledges to do all he can to get Bush re-elected, suddenly it's a huge conflict of interest.

The truly funny part is, every county in Florida that had the legendary problems in 2000 (and in 2002, by the way,) were counties where the election process was run and designed by...c'mon, venture a guess...yes, the Dims. And of course, let's not forget that the more heavily Republican counties, in Northwest Florida (which happen to be in the Central Time Zone,) had artificially low turnouts in 2000, because the networks declared Gore the winner in Florida, while the voting precincts in those counties were still open.

Kathleen Harris was simply following the laws of the State of Florida in 2000. The Florida Supreme Court (heavily tilted to the Dim side) took it upon itself to invent new rules for counting "votes" in the affected counties. It came up to the United States Supreme Court to review the Law as written and decide.

Oh, by the way, almost every single recount after January 2001 (using every method imaginable, including the cockamamie methods designed by the Florida Supreme Court) yielded a Bush victory.when the enterpreneir who promises to help Bush get elected owns voting machines then yes it is a conflict of interest--also did those recounts count the 94,000 voters illegally purged from the voting rolls by Jeb?

Anything has to be better than the dodgy machines they are using now. Though one method that is still amoung the best is manual counting, it's used rather well in Australia and with thriple checking of all counting and the highest security meassures it is probally the most accurate and difficult to manipulate.

When George Soros pledges to spend his enormous fortune funding all sorts of groups to defeat GW Bush, it's called "freedom of speech.

Ah, okay.. but it's Debold running the election, not George Soros :roll:

Its not that easy to rig an election.

If the polls going into election day in California have Kerry ahead by 20% and Bush wins in a landslide, of course people will notice.

The whole electronic voting system is to avoid the hanging-chad dimpled-chad stuff that made Florida 2000 such a fiasco.

I totally agree.. so why no paper trail then? Explain that for the group please? This makes sense how? Don't say they can't do it.. because they can. They've also proven they can be hacked.

Defend this system...

I don't think you can.
It is difficult to defend, especially when you get suggestive videos such as the following:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

When the polls are tight, especially like they have been the past few months, it might be that much easier to steal an election, IF it already hasn't been accomplished????

Hmmm, funny. When George Soros pledges to spend his enormous fortune funding all sorts of groups to defeat GW Bush, it's called "freedom of speech" (Campaign Finance Reform laws be-damned.) When an entrepreneur pledges to do all he can to get Bush re-elected, suddenly it's a huge conflict of interest.

The truly funny part is, every county in Florida that had the legendary problems in 2000 (and in 2002, by the way,) were counties where the election process was run and designed by...c'mon, venture a guess...yes, the Dims. And of course, let's not forget that the more heavily Republican counties, in Northwest Florida (which happen to be in the Central Time Zone,) had artificially low turnouts in 2000, because the networks declared Gore the winner in Florida, while the voting precincts in those counties were still open.

Kathleen Harris was simply following the laws of the State of Florida in 2000. The Florida Supreme Court (heavily tilted to the Dim side) took it upon itself to invent new rules for counting "votes" in the affected counties. It came up to the United States Supreme Court to review the Law as written and decide.

Oh, by the way, almost every single recount after January 2001 (using every method imaginable, including the cockamamie methods designed by the Florida Supreme Court) yielded a Bush victory.when the enterpreneir who promises to help Bush get elected owns voting machines then yes it is a conflict of interest--also did those recounts count the 94,000 voters illegally purged from the voting rolls by Jeb?
I believe you mean those who were purged for being felons, or "being unfortunate enough to have the same name as a felon." Spare me the sob story, people who treat voting as a right, instead of a privilege, have no right in my book to protest when they lose the privilege and can't be bothered to ensure they still have it.

The real sad part about 2000 is, all the problems that ocurred were in Dim-controlled precincts...such as West Palm Beach county (the "butterfly" ballot,) Dade county (boxes full of votes found in black churches,) St Louis (voting stations were kept open long past the official closing time in heavily-Dim sections,) various areas in Wisconsin (where street bums were enticed to vote Democratic by activists providing them with cigarrettes.) And let's not forget the shenanigans involved in the California recall of 2003 (e-voting machines failing, the Dim-controlled Ninth Circus Court of Appeals coming up with every excuse imaginable to stop the recall, the laughable actions of Cruz Bustamante, etc) For Dims to be concerned about the "integrity" of the vote, is a joke.

I am kinda partial to the paper vote with scrutineers posted at each polling station. Heck of a lot less chance to hijack an election.

The remotest chance of tampering with votes sounds so third world........

If the polls going into election day in California have Kerry ahead by 20% and Bush wins in a landslide, of course people will notice.

Yes, but in states where the candidates are separated only by 5% or so, it won't be so obvious. With those states, it's a lot easier to argue that the polls were just wrong. And judging by the 2000 election numbers and recent polls, there are many states where neither candidate has a clear lead, and vote tampering could have an effect that wouldn't immediately look suspicious.

I believe you mean those who were purged for being felons, or "being unfortunate enough to have the same name as a felon." Spare me the sob story, people who treat voting as a right, instead of a privilege, have no right in my book to protest when they lose the privilege and can't be bothered to ensure they still have it.Excuse me? You're saying it's right for a government to strip people of their voting rights because they have the same last name as a felon? I shouldn't have to check every minute to make sure my rights haven't been taken from me for no reason. The excuse "Well you weren't paying attention, your rights are moot" doesn't fly. We elect those politicians into office to <i>protect</i> our rights.

I believe you mean those who were purged for being felons, or "being unfortunate enough to have the same name as a felon." Spare me the sob story, people who treat voting as a right, instead of a privilege, have no right in my book to protest when they lose the privilege and can't be bothered to ensure they still have it.Excuse me? You're saying it's right for a government to strip people of their voting rights because they have the same last name as a felon?
Correction: voting privileges... :shock:
I shouldn't have to check every minute to make sure my rights haven't been taken from me for no reason. The excuse "Well you weren't paying attention, your rights are moot" doesn't fly. We elect those politicians into office to <i>protect</i> our rights.
Obviously the government should be able to take our ability to vote away whenever it wants :shock: :shock: I'm scared now....people really think like that? :cry:

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

I thought the votes should just be saved on a disk that's locked in and then taken out when the votes are to be counted.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.Do you have any idea how embaressing that would be for the great America to be humbled before the UN over concerns of electoral fraud...

Steph--it's not just California. Indiana, Ohio and Maryland are all in the early stages of requiring paper trails as well, and it's being debated in New York too.

But Panhandlia's bluster to the side, the simple fact is that this really should be a bipartisan issue, and I don't know why it isn't. I'm certainly not going to accuse the Republicans of supporting faulty election methods--I don't believe for a moment that they stand for that as a party or that most in the party would use illegal means to win--so I have to assume that they and their contituencies just don't realize the potential for foul play here.

And that's not surprising--most Democrats don't get it either. It's a tiny group that's been shouting from the wilderness for 4 years now. I only got on it two years ago, and I had to go searching for it. Once I found it and started to ask questions at forums like this one, I was largely dismissed as a wacko. But the story is gathering momentum. Columnists like Paul Krugman have written about it more than once. The NY Times editorial page recommended paper trails for the state of New York. And the California Secretary of State has ruled a large percentage of the machines ineligible for voting this year. So it's gathering steam.

The reason I have faith it will wind up happening is this--there's no good reason to not have a verifiable, auditable paper trail. None. And to anyone who says "It's too expensive" I say there's no price too high to make sure you get it right when it comes to our elections.

Hmmm, funny. When George Soros pledges to spend his enormous fortune funding all sorts of groups to defeat GW Bush, it's called "freedom of speech" (Campaign Finance Reform laws be-damned.) When an entrepreneur pledges to do all he can to get Bush re-elected, suddenly it's a huge conflict of interest.Three words for you, you flipping hypocrite.

Richard
Mellon
Scaife

No one has ever suggested that Scaife shouldn't be allowed to spend his money the way he wishes. Soros comes out and spends a pittance in comparison and you right wingers go apeshit. Give me the biggest freaking break, please.

Over $100,000 to Bush's campaign in the election year by owner of Diebold.
Also, the voter purges were one of Karl Rove's directives,
AND NOT THE FIRST ONE HE'S EVER PERFORMED.
The machines in their early stages have had at least three known cases of turning out votes in the 11,000 area for Republicans EVEN in areas of a total voter turnout of somewhere around 7,000 people. That math doesn't work out.
There are two other companies vying for this job, as Diebold is under legal scrutiny right now and is trying to stay out of the limelight ....

Actually, Straughn, there have been three companies involved in this business for a while now--Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia. Of the three, Sequoia has been the most open and willing to work with states on their voting systems as far as the source code and the paper trail worries are concerned.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.Do you have any idea how embaressing that would be for the great America to be humbled before the UN over concerns of electoral fraud...

Surely this will prevent an even greater embarrasement, with a Federal election being decided by the courts.

I feel certain that the US could turn to the UN in their time of need, and that the UN would be only too willing to provide assistance.

What are friends for?

but then i live in new mexico where boxes of votes miraculously appear the day after all the votes have been counted

That's one thing that New Mexico seems to have in common with Texas. I worked for Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez in District 28 in the primaries,and he initially won by about 150 votes. But then his opponent,one Henry Cuellar of the Zell Miller strain of Democrats,"found" an uncounted ballot box that just happened to put him over the top by about 400 votes. Last I heard,they were still fighting it out in the courts.

but then i live in new mexico where boxes of votes miraculously appear the day after all the votes have been counted

That's one thing that New Mexico seems to have in common with Texas. I worked for Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez in District 28 in the primaries,and he initially won by about 150 votes. But then his opponent,one Henry Cuellar of the Zell Miller strain of Democrats,"found" an uncounted ballot box that just happened to put him over the top by about 400 votes. Last I heard,they were still fighting it out in the courts.

Perhaps the UN could provide the same assistance to any troubled electoral processes, throughout the entire US.

I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

but then i live in new mexico where boxes of votes miraculously appear the day after all the votes have been counted

That's one thing that New Mexico seems to have in common with Texas. I worked for Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez in District 28 in the primaries,and he initially won by about 150 votes. But then his opponent,one Henry Cuellar of the Zell Miller strain of Democrats,"found" an uncounted ballot box that just happened to put him over the top by about 400 votes. Last I heard,they were still fighting it out in the courts.

Perhaps the UN could provide the same assistance to any troubled electoral processes, throughout the entire US.

I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

The UN can stay the hell out of our country. The USA should leave the UN immediately. I don't want some UN soldiers setting foot in this country. And if I saw any I'd mobilize my militia to help stop the invasion, and it'd be a war to save the USA from foreign occupation.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.Do you have any idea how embaressing that would be for the great America to be humbled before the UN over concerns of electoral fraud...

Surely this will prevent an even greater embarrasement, with a Federal election being decided by the courts.

I feel certain that the US could turn to the UN in their time of need, and that the UN would be only too willing to provide assistance.

What are friends for?You are of course, working on the assumption the US still has friends in the UN.

Luckily, the UK's record on government IT projects is so appalling, we will get it in 2025, five times over-budget, and the results will be inconclusive. :P

Yep, Could be even more diabolical thennthat, knowing what our government has been like with the tax credits :P

Hmmm, funny. When George Soros pledges to spend his enormous fortune funding all sorts of groups to defeat GW Bush, it's called "freedom of speech" (Campaign Finance Reform laws be-damned.) When an entrepreneur pledges to do all he can to get Bush re-elected, suddenly it's a huge conflict of interest.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that said "entrepreneur" (the CEO of Diebold) is providing the means by which our votes will be counted,and that any appearance of a conflict of intrest by him undermines the confidence of voters in a fair and balanced election. But then,nuance never really mattered to you in your efforts to paint liberals as more evil than Satan,did it?

The truly funny part is, every county in Florida that had the legendary problems in 2000 (and in 2002, by the way,) were counties where the election process was run and designed by...c'mon, venture a guess...yes, the Dims. And of course, let's not forget that the more heavily Republican counties, in Northwest Florida (which happen to be in the Central Time Zone,) had artificially low turnouts in 2000, because the networks declared Gore the winner in Florida, while the voting precincts in those counties were still open.

Never mind the Brooks Brothers riot sponsored by Republican officeholders,or the Republican activists who sent junk faxes when Judge Terry Lewis,upon remand from the Florida Supreme Court,requested that the counties send their vote counting standards in order to develop a uniform standard for recount,or numerous other Republican dirty tricks that helped shape the outcome of sElection 2K.

Kathleen Harris was simply following the laws of the State of Florida in 2000.

I didn't know Florida election law included provisions to purge non-felon blacks from the voter rolls simply because their names were similar to felons and they showed a propensity to vote Democrat.

The Florida Supreme Court (heavily tilted to the Dim side) took it upon itself to invent new rules for counting "votes" in the affected counties. It came up to the United States Supreme Court to review the Law as written and decide.

Never mind that a partisan SCOTUS put the Florida Supreme Court in a catch-22 situation - it was scolded by SCOTUS for not "adopt[ing] adequate statewide standards for determining what is a legal vote," knowing full well that such a "rewriting" of Florida election law would be overturned by the Supreme Court. Furthermore,several members of SCOTUS had conflicts of interest that they should've recused themselves for. Scalia has two sons that were with law firms working for Bush at the time,and Clarence Thomas' wife was taking applications for positions in a Bush White House,meanwhile Rhenquist and O'Connor both had stated that they wanted to retire,but would only do so with a Republican in office while O'Connor had also said that it was "terrible" when Florida was initally called for Gore.

Oh, by the way, almost every single recount after January 2001 (using every method imaginable, including the cockamamie methods designed by the Florida Supreme Court) yielded a Bush victory.

Not true. A careful statistical analysis conducted by the Miami Herald suggests that Gore would've won Florida by at least 23,000 votes had the recounts been allowed to go on (http://www.herald.com/thispage.htm?content/archive/news/elect2000/decision/104268.htm). But knowing you,you'll probably dismiss this out of hand as "evil terrorist traitor liberal propaganda" simply because it doesn't fit your made-truth that Our Glorious Leader the Most Holy George W. Bush won by a landslide.

For those not as blinded by partisan hate as Panhandlia,my source material came from "The Gore Exception" (URL: http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html)

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.Do you have any idea how embaressing that would be for the great America to be humbled before the UN over concerns of electoral fraud...

Surely this will prevent an even greater embarrasement, with a Federal election being decided by the courts.

I feel certain that the US could turn to the UN in their time of need, and that the UN would be only too willing to provide assistance.

What are friends for?You are of course, working on the assumption the US still has friends in the UN.

I'm very sure that they would be happy to forgive and forget.

How could they turn away from such an obvious need?

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

I certainly believe it wouldn't hurt to have "international observers" over-see the election in November.. but I some how doubt the Americans would go for it.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

I certainly believe it wouldn't hurt to have "international observers" over-see the election in November.. but I some how doubt the Americans would go for it.

I'm sure you misjudge them, Stephistan.

They have a passionate regard for freedom and democracy, and would be most interested to see that there are no repeats of the past electoral controversies.

They surely wish to provide a shining example to the rest of the free world.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

I certainly believe it wouldn't hurt to have "international observers" over-see the election in November.. but I some how doubt the Americans would go for it.Precisely, I don't think the UN has any place in any election in the US. The UN has it's own agenda, it's impartiality would be very suspect. I think we in the US see the UN much more clearly for what it really is than many in the rest of the world.

As far as the voting machines are concerned, I think they are a bad idea and don't see any reason for the rush to put them in place. Do I think it's a conspiracy? No! But I am far less apt to see conspriacies everywhere than some are.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

I certainly believe it wouldn't hurt to have "international observers" over-see the election in November.. but I some how doubt the Americans would go for it.Precisely, I don't think the UN has any place in any election in the US. The UN has it's own agenda, it's impartiality would be very suspect. I think we in the US see the UN much more clearly for what it really is than many in the rest of the world.

As far as the voting machines are concerned, I think they are a bad idea and don't see any reason for the rush to put them in place. Do I think it's a conspiracy? No! But I am far less apt to see conspriacies everywhere than some are.

Surely you wouldn't want a suspect elecion, and being held up to ridicule by the rest of the world?

The UN has provided international monitors in the past to ensure free and fair elections, and I don't think their impartiality has ever been questioned.

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

I certainly believe it wouldn't hurt to have "international observers" over-see the election in November.. but I some how doubt the Americans would go for it.Precisely, I don't think the UN has any place in any election in the US. The UN has it's own agenda, it's impartiality would be very suspect. I think we in the US see the UN much more clearly for what it really is than many in the rest of the world.

As far as the voting machines are concerned, I think they are a bad idea and don't see any reason for the rush to put them in place. Do I think it's a conspiracy? No! But I am far less apt to see conspriacies everywhere than some are.

Surely you wouldn't want a suspect elecion, and being held up to ridicule by the rest of the world?

The UN has provided international monitors in the past to ensure free and fair elections, and I don't think their impartiality has ever been questioned.That is exactly what I meant when I wrote that we in the US see the UN much more clearly for what it is than many others do. I think UN involvement would make the election more dubious, not less. The UN is obviously and vocally anti-Bush, how could it be expected to behave impartially?

The USA is, of course, not the first nation to experience electoral "irregularities".

Why not provide the same remedy that is used for other nations?

I feel certain that the UN would be able to provide sufficient monitors to enusre that the electoral process is not tampered with.

They tried in 2002,but our government wouldn't allow it because it "infringed on our sovereignty" as if we're the only ones allowed to infringe on the sovereignty of others. :roll:

I'm sure that they would still be willing to help, if only asked politely.

I certainly believe it wouldn't hurt to have "international observers" over-see the election in November.. but I some how doubt the Americans would go for it.Precisely, I don't think the UN has any place in any election in the US. The UN has it's own agenda, it's impartiality would be very suspect. I think we in the US see the UN much more clearly for what it really is than many in the rest of the world.

As far as the voting machines are concerned, I think they are a bad idea and don't see any reason for the rush to put them in place. Do I think it's a conspiracy? No! But I am far less apt to see conspriacies everywhere than some are.

Surely you wouldn't want a suspect elecion, and being held up to ridicule by the rest of the world?

The UN has provided international monitors in the past to ensure free and fair elections, and I don't think their impartiality has ever been questioned.That is exactly what I meant when I wrote that we in the US see the UN much more clearly for what it is than many others do. I think UN involvement would make the election more dubious, not less. The UN is obviously and vocally anti-Bush, how could it be expected to behave impartially?

They have been trusted in many nations in precisely the international monitoring role.

I hope you are not questioning their integrity in this role.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

No, not the results.

Merely the process.

To ensure that the elections are in fact free and fair.

A role which, as I have said, the UN has filled on many occassions.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

No, not the results.

Merely the process.

To ensure that the elections are in fact free and fair.

A role which, as I have said, the UN has filled on many occassions.OK, if the election results in a candidate the UN doesn't support being elected what are the chances the UN will not find fault with the method? The UN fills many roles, often poorly and never wothout it's own agenda.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

No, not the results.

Merely the process.

To ensure that the elections are in fact free and fair.

A role which, as I have said, the UN has filled on many occassions.OK, if the election results in a candidate the UN doesn't support being elected what are the chances the UN will not find fault with the method? The UN fills many roles, often poorly and never wothout it's own agenda.

They would be expected to report on the methodology of the election before the count even took place.

They could not be seen to take a partisan approach (an allegation raised against some of the courts involved in the last election).

As I said, they have been used in this role on many occassions.

They are not to influence the outcome in any way, just to ensure that the processes used are fair and transparent.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

No, not the results.

Merely the process.

To ensure that the elections are in fact free and fair.

A role which, as I have said, the UN has filled on many occassions.OK, if the election results in a candidate the UN doesn't support being elected what are the chances the UN will not find fault with the method? The UN fills many roles, often poorly and never wothout it's own agenda.

They would be expected to report on the methodology of the election before the count even took place.

They could not be seen to take a partisan approach (an allegation raised against some of the courts involved in the last election).

As I said, they have been used in this role on many occassions.

They are not to influence the outcome in any way, just to ensure that the processes used are fair and transparent.To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

No, not the results.

Merely the process.

To ensure that the elections are in fact free and fair.

A role which, as I have said, the UN has filled on many occassions.OK, if the election results in a candidate the UN doesn't support being elected what are the chances the UN will not find fault with the method? The UN fills many roles, often poorly and never wothout it's own agenda.

They would be expected to report on the methodology of the election before the count even took place.

They could not be seen to take a partisan approach (an allegation raised against some of the courts involved in the last election).

As I said, they have been used in this role on many occassions.

They are not to influence the outcome in any way, just to ensure that the processes used are fair and transparent.To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

Just trying to find a way to ensure that everyone knows that the US election processes are fair.

The UN is usually highly regarded as monitors in elections.

I don't know who else could perform the role and be regarded as impartial.

I question the UN's integrity in all things. You see, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory. It is as corrupt, self-serving and inept as any other body. I wouldn't want my leaders being subject to approval by that group or any group, other than voters in the US.

I wasn't suggesting that your leaders would have to be subject to approval by the UN.

That would clearly be wrong.

I was merely proposing that their assistance in monitoring to ensure free and fair elections, and their vast experience in that very role, could well be useful come November.

Far better than having the results dragged through the courts, amid claim and counter-claim.What you suggest is ,basically, the results of the election being aproved by the UN.

No, not the results.

Merely the process.

To ensure that the elections are in fact free and fair.

A role which, as I have said, the UN has filled on many occassions.OK, if the election results in a candidate the UN doesn't support being elected what are the chances the UN will not find fault with the method? The UN fills many roles, often poorly and never wothout it's own agenda.

They would be expected to report on the methodology of the election before the count even took place.

They could not be seen to take a partisan approach (an allegation raised against some of the courts involved in the last election).

As I said, they have been used in this role on many occassions.

They are not to influence the outcome in any way, just to ensure that the processes used are fair and transparent.To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

Just trying to find a way to ensure that everyone knows that the US election processes are fair.

The UN is usually highly regarded as monitors in elections.

I don't know who else could perform the role and be regarded as impartial.

That's the problem with letting the courts decide - both sides claim bias in judicial appointments and processes.

There is a much easier way. Cast ballots, count them. If one loses they should suck it up, not whine about it. There are no sure things in elections and someone will always find a reason to bitch. Let those who have problems air them in whichever forum they choose and move on.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

The UN is an international organization which has the agenda of the whole world in matters that concern the UN. The UN do NOT decide the outcome of an election. You really have no idea what the UN is for and why the hell should the US know the UN better than any other country of the rest of the world? Why is the US "in the know"? Would you please share, why exactly *your* country knows so much about deceit, lies and corruption? Oh wait.. you dont have to tell me.. I already know. You are led by the most corrupt, deceiving and lieing administration in the world. Thank you. Bye.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

The UN is an international organization which has the agenda of the whole world in matters that concern the UN. The UN do NOT decide the outcome of an election. You really have no idea what the UN is for and why the hell should the US know the UN better than any other country of the rest of the world? Why is the US "in the know"? Would you please share, why exactly *your* country knows so much about deceit, lies and corruption? Oh wait.. you dont have to tell me.. I already know. You are led by the most corrupt, deceiving and lieing administration in the world. Thank you. Bye.You're welcome. The rest of the world holds an overly rosy view of the UN. The UN may have your interests at heart but your interests are behind its own. Like I said before, the UN is nothing more than a nation with no territory and no population. It pursues its own agenda, serves its own interests like any nation. I know exactly what the was supposed to be for but when was the last time the UN was at all usefull? And we in the US do have first-hand knowledge of corruption, just like you, no matter who you are. We don't turn a blind eye to the UN's corruption, that's the difference. We see the UN. You see what the UN was meant to be.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!

You know what the problem with the UN is, Deeloleo? That's that the US has most off the militairy power and think's it don't need the UN.

OK, back on-topic
here, in Holland we use the electric voting system for a few years now and it works really well. Much better than paper-voting.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!I think you are mistaken. Much of the world has a misguided view of the UN.The UN is nothing but flaws. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, as much as you might like to, you have no voice in US elections. We have no voice in yours, it's simple, it's fair. Where's the problem?

You know what the problem with the UN is, Deeloleo? That's that the US has most off the militairy power and think's it don't need the UN.

OK, back on-topic
here, in Holland we use the electric voting system for a few years now and it works really well. Much better than paper-voting.It's true, the US doesn't need the UN. That's not the fault of the US, it's the fault of the UN. The UN is ineffective, corrupt, self-serving and weak. Did the US make it so? Maybe. Should the UN be an authority in any matter given that it can't or won't enforce it's will, is little more than a debate society, and is obviously corrupt? Certainly not.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!I think you are mistaken. Much of the world has a misguided view of the UN.The UN is nothing but flaws. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, as much as you might like to, you have no voice in US elections. We have no voice in yours, it's simple, it's fair. Where's the problem?

Well, in many respects you're correct.. I mean for all the B.S. talk coming out of the USA about freedom, the sad truth is you don't even have a constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States.. So they may do as they wish any way. But at least admit it. Or, as people like me do, expose it.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!I think you are mistaken. Much of the world has a misguided view of the UN.The UN is nothing but flaws. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, as much as you might like to, you have no voice in US elections. We have no voice in yours, it's simple, it's fair. Where's the problem?

Well, in many respects you're correct.. I mean for all the B.S. talk coming out of the USA about freedom, the sad truth is you don't even have a constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States any way.. So they may do as they wish any way. But at least admit it. Or, as people like me do, expose it.I have every right to vote (or would at least) The electoral college is not bound to heed my vote, but I have every right to cast it.

but then i live in new mexico where boxes of votes miraculously appear the day after all the votes have been counted

That's one thing that New Mexico seems to have in common with Texas. I worked for Congressman Ciro D. Rodriguez in District 28 in the primaries,and he initially won by about 150 votes. But then his opponent,one Henry Cuellar of the Zell Miller strain of Democrats,"found" an uncounted ballot box that just happened to put him over the top by about 400 votes. Last I heard,they were still fighting it out in the courts.

Perhaps the UN could provide the same assistance to any troubled electoral processes, throughout the entire US.

I'm sure they wouldn't mind.

The UN can stay the hell out of our country. The USA should leave the UN immediately. I don't want some UN soldiers setting foot in this country. And if I saw any I'd mobilize my militia to help stop the invasion, and it'd be a war to save the USA from foreign occupation.

Notice the violent response here to an idea as innocuous as UN election observers. Given this, it shouldn't surprise anyone that people in other countries aren't thrilled to have US troops on the ground without their permission. People hate the idea of "occupation" or a "foreign presence," no matter how benevolent its intentions might be.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!I think you are mistaken. Much of the world has a misguided view of the UN.The UN is nothing but flaws. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, as much as you might like to, you have no voice in US elections. We have no voice in yours, it's simple, it's fair. Where's the problem?

Well, in many respects you're correct.. I mean for all the B.S. talk coming out of the USA about freedom, the sad truth is you don't even have a constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States any way.. So they may do as they wish any way. But at least admit it. Or, as people like me do, expose it.I have every right to vote (or would at least) The electoral college is not bound to heed my vote, but I have every right to cast it.

Sorry, but the supreme court has said otherwise. You in fact have NO constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States. Read up on your fabulous constitution.. it's there.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!I think you are mistaken. Much of the world has a misguided view of the UN.The UN is nothing but flaws. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, as much as you might like to, you have no voice in US elections. We have no voice in yours, it's simple, it's fair. Where's the problem?

Well, in many respects you're correct.. I mean for all the B.S. talk coming out of the USA about freedom, the sad truth is you don't even have a constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States any way.. So they may do as they wish any way. But at least admit it. Or, as people like me do, expose it.I have every right to vote (or would at least) The electoral college is not bound to heed my vote, but I have every right to cast it.

And if the electoral college is not bound to heed your vote, then what is the right to vote worth?

P.S. In many states, the electors are bound by oath to vote for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state.

To put it quite simply, I don't trust the UN to do those things without pushing it's own agenda. Even if it could or would, nothing makes any opinion of the UN binding in the US. It would be futile, unwanted, and most likely corrupt.

I think most of the world realizes some thing that many Americans don't realize, the UN may have it's flaws, no question, but they can be trusted a hell of a lot more then the United States of America!I think you are mistaken. Much of the world has a misguided view of the UN.The UN is nothing but flaws. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, as much as you might like to, you have no voice in US elections. We have no voice in yours, it's simple, it's fair. Where's the problem?

Well, in many respects you're correct.. I mean for all the B.S. talk coming out of the USA about freedom, the sad truth is you don't even have a constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States any way.. So they may do as they wish any way. But at least admit it. Or, as people like me do, expose it.I have every right to vote (or would at least) The electoral college is not bound to heed my vote, but I have every right to cast it.

And if the electoral college is not bound to heed your vote, then what is the right to vote worth?

P.S. In many states, the electors are bound by oath to vote for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state.

Actually it goes deeper then that. Americans actually have no constitutional right to vote for the President, it's a grace granted to them by the Governor of their state. Now, the Governor can outright pick the people he wants as electoral college reps.. to go do his/her bidding.. but if you let one group vote, then they must let all legal to vote.. but they can deny them the right to vote in the first place.

What's wrong Deeloleo ? Cat caught your tounge?

What's wrong Deeloleo ? Cat caught your tounge?I was making coffee, cut me some slack. It's still a little early! You couldn't be more wrong about voting rights in the US. The provision is that each state is allowed to determine who may to vote and the states ,not the federal government, conduct the election. It is meant to prevent people from going from one state to the next to influence elections there and to prevent Washington from fixing the elections to keep incumbents in office. It works quite well.

You couldn't be more wrong about voting rights in the US. The provision is that each state is allowed to determine who may to vote and the states ,not the federal government, conduct the election. It is meant to prevent people from going from one state to the next to influence elections there and to prevent Washington from fixing the elections to keep incumbents in office. It works quite well.

Really...

http://us.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/columns/fl.dorf.righttovote.12.13/

You couldn't be more wrong about voting rights in the US. The provision is that each state is allowed to determine who may to vote and the states ,not the federal government, conduct the election. It is meant to prevent people from going from one state to the next to influence elections there and to prevent Washington from fixing the elections to keep incumbents in office. It works quite well.

Really...

http://us.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/columns/fl.dorf.righttovote.12.13/I've seen it, Dorf is as mistaken as you. Must I find a link to the provision in the US Constitution?

You couldn't be more wrong about voting rights in the US. The provision is that each state is allowed to determine who may to vote and the states ,not the federal government, conduct the election. It is meant to prevent people from going from one state to the next to influence elections there and to prevent Washington from fixing the elections to keep incumbents in office. It works quite well.

Really...

http://us.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/columns/fl.dorf.righttovote.12.13/I've seen it, Dorf is as mistaken as you. Must I find a link to the provision in the US Constitution?

Yes, you must be right.. Dorf who has a background in law.. and I, a mere political scientist must be wrong.. whatever.. :roll:

You couldn't be more wrong about voting rights in the US. The provision is that each state is allowed to determine who may to vote and the states ,not the federal government, conduct the election. It is meant to prevent people from going from one state to the next to influence elections there and to prevent Washington from fixing the elections to keep incumbents in office. It works quite well.

Really...

http://us.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/columns/fl.dorf.righttovote.12.13/I've seen it, Dorf is as mistaken as you. Must I find a link to the provision in the US Constitution?

Yes, you must be right.. Dorf who has a background in law.. and I, a mere political scientist must be wrong.. whatever.. :roll:Obviously you are both far superior to me, I'm sorry :roll: . You aren't arrogant or snippy either :roll: , again I'm sorry.

You know what the problem with the UN is, Deeloleo? That's that the US has most off the militairy power and think's it don't need the UN.

OK, back on-topic
here, in Holland we use the electric voting system for a few years now and it works really well. Much better than paper-voting.
It's true, the US doesn't need the UN. That's not the fault of the US, it's the fault of the UN. The UN is ineffective, corrupt, self-serving and weak. Did the US make it so? Maybe. Should the UN be an authority in any matter given that it can't or won't enforce it's will, is little more than a debate society, and is obviously corrupt? Certainly not.

So, if you were president of the US you would just get out of the UN, declare war to everyone you want and think nothing is going to happen?