NationStates Jolt Archive

Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.
He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - "seems likely".
Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".
Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".
His remarks come ahead of the first TV debate between Mr Bush and John Kerry.
They are expected to discuss the war on Iraq and homeland security during the programme on Thursday.
Recent opinion polls give Mr Bush a lead over Mr Kerry of between 3% and 9%.

Reforms unlikely
In an article in the Washington Post newspaper, Mr Carter, a Democrat, wrote that reforms - agreed after the last vote in Florida had been marred by counting problems - had not yet been implemented.
He accused Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, a Republican, of trying to get the name of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader included on the state ballot, knowing he might divert Democrat votes.
"A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."
Mr Carter said Florida Governor Jeb Bush - brother of the president - had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future".
"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation," he added.
"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3693354.stm

So, any thoughts? (other than along the line of 'Carter was the worst pres ever etc etc'. I mean any thoughts on the article.)

While you reading this, check out the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3666898.stm
For the first time, representatives from the OSCE - the European body which has traditionally monitored elections in fledgling democracies - will observe as Americans elect their president.

There have certainly been objections to the involvement of foreign monitors in the domestic affairs of a country which sees itself as a beacon of democracy.

Which is rather ironically funny really (US = fledgling democracy :p ).

Yes, I was amused to hear, a few months ago, that election monitors will be sent to America this year. What has become of the system there?

As for this thread: Jimmy Carter might be right, but why do they send him to monitor elections in his own country. He could easily be influenced by his own partisan bias, as a former president.

It's already happening.

I forget the News burp I listened to but there are already "mistakes" happening with the voter registration.

"What do you mean I am a convicted fellon?"

Politics rarely change.....

Just watch.....

If the vote is close again here in Florida....the lawsuits will start right away. This is just the set-up. Have Carter say the voting system is inadequate and wait till election time.

Ralph Nadar has always stated that while he knows he could not win the presidency, he must at least attempt to gain that 5% of the vote to bring his Green Party into the required membership for Federal Campaign Funds.

Since Nadar has NOT ever come close to that 5% margin, how could anyone believe it takes a significant amount of votes from the Democratic Party?

This is obviously just apart of the same rigid control that both Republican & Democratic parties have held over American voting for the past century. When the American people eventually recognize the damage bipartisan causes, then maybe America won't need suffer another puppet leader.

Ralph Nadar has always stated that while he knows he could not win the presidency, he must at least attempt to gain that 5% of the vote to bring his Green Party into the required membership for Federal Campaign Funds.

Since Nadar has NOT ever come close to that 5% margin, how could anyone believe it takes a significant amount of votes from the Democratic Party?

This is obviously just apart of the same rigid control that both Republican & Democratic parties have held over American voting for the past century. When the American people eventually recognize the damage bipartisan causes, then maybe America won't need suffer another puppet leader.
Nader changed parties though so that can't be the reason he is still running.

What you mean puppet leader?

Ralph Nadar has always stated that while he knows he could not win the presidency, he must at least attempt to gain that 5% of the vote to bring his Green Party into the required membership for Federal Campaign Funds.

Since Nadar has NOT ever come close to that 5% margin, how could anyone believe it takes a significant amount of votes from the Democratic Party?

Because Nader's total votes in 2000 was more than the difference between Bush and Gore. Therefore logic dictates that, had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have won.

Yes, I was amused to hear, a few months ago, that election monitors will be sent to America this year. What has become of the system there?

As for this thread: Jimmy Carter might be right, but why do they send him to monitor elections in his own country. He could easily be influenced by his own partisan bias, as a former president.
They are not sending him to monitor the election, as far as I know. He merely speaks up with some authority since he's a member of an internationnal organisation who monitors elections throughout the world. Recently, he was in Venezuela, monitoring the referendum to oust Chavez.

Because Nader's total votes in 2000 was more than the difference between Bush and Gore. Therefore logic dictates that, had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have won.
If you assume that all Nader voters would have voted for Gore instead.

Its all moot really, seeing as Gore actually did get more votes than Bush.

Its all moot really, seeing as Gore actually did get more votes than Bush.

Wrong....and wrong. He came up 523 votes short. He has clearly gone insane since the election as his behavior and appearance show. We really dodged a bullet there....

Its all moot really, seeing as Gore actually did get more votes than Bush.

Wrong....and wrong. He came up 523 votes short. He has clearly gone insane since the election as his behavior and appearance show. We really dodged a bullet there....
These estimates are not counting the voters that were illegally (in my opinion) removed from the voter's list. Furthermore, some recount were never completed because of the supreme court's decision.

All in all a blunder. Just what Carter is warning us against.

[Demented Hamsters #1]
Carter fears Florida vote trouble

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Voting arrangements in Florida do not meet "basic international requirements" and could undermine the US election, former US President Jimmy Carter says.
He said a repeat of the irregularities of the much-disputed 2000 election - which gave President George W Bush the narrowest of wins - "seems likely".
Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".
Mr Carter, a veteran observer of polls worldwide, also accused Florida's top election official of "bias".
His remarks come ahead of the first TV debate between Mr Bush and John Kerry.
They are expected to discuss the war on Iraq and homeland security during the programme on Thursday.
Recent opinion polls give Mr Bush a lead over Mr Kerry of between 3% and 9%.

Reforms unlikely
In an article in the Washington Post newspaper, Mr Carter, a Democrat, wrote that reforms - agreed after the last vote in Florida had been marred by counting problems - had not yet been implemented.
He accused Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, a Republican, of trying to get the name of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader included on the state ballot, knowing he might divert Democrat votes.
"A fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons."
Mr Carter said Florida Governor Jeb Bush - brother of the president - had "taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future".
"It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation," he added.
"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."

Hmmmm...

If any "republican" irregularities are happening, then bring them to light in a forum that matters (what WOULD that be BTW?) and prosecute the matter.

If that's not happening, then I, personally, will assume that "all is well" and well under my "couldn't give a flying fnoot about" threshold.

So let's have all those "conspiracy buffs" out there get to work and make us care that "the evil Bushes" and crew are up to no good.

Until then, Carter looks like a silly anti-American gas-bag to the right, and a destined-for-a-marty's-sainthood elder statesman to the left.

Cant Carter just go away? Other ex presidents stay out of presidential elections, what makes Carter so special? And can he please stop negotiating agreements with other countries. Let him stick to the habitat for humanity stuff. At least he does good works there.

Even though Ralph Nadar changes his party nomination, the goal still stands;

Once a 3rd party reaches above the minumum needed, it becomes part of the electorial funding. The idea is to break the cycle of bipartisanship now controlling the country. Media-backing and funding all come from either a Democratic or Republican controlled system, it wasn't a surprize to see someone pushing so hard for an Independent to be apart of the State of Florida Primaries - considering it has been controlled by only 2 parties for over a century.

Bipartisan uses a natural competitive influence with VOTERS, basically blinding them to the errors within the elections. Americans no longer look for who would make the better leader... instead it becomes a competition of "Do Not Let The Other Guy Win". It isn't any wonder why so many Americans refuse to vote - because the choice for "None Of The Above" isn't available.

[Isanyonehome]
Cant Carter just go away? Other ex presidents stay out of presidential elections, what makes Carter so special? And can he please stop negotiating agreements with other countries. Let him stick to the habitat for humanity stuff. At least he does good works there.

Carter is a leftist Saint.

Haven't you noticed the halo..!? The beatific "smile"..? The pained and solemn expressions..? The protestations on behalf of the "downtrodden"..?

He just hasn't quite located his "martyrly end" yet,.. therefore he wanders the planet in search of a cross to be nailed to.

Preferably upside down.

[Vaginal Sunshine #13]
Even though Ralph Nadar changes his party nomination, the goal still stands;

Once a 3rd party reaches above the minumum needed, it becomes part of the electorial funding. The idea is to break the cycle of bipartisanship now controlling the country. Media-backing and funding all come from either a Democratic or Republican controlled system, it wasn't a surprize to see someone pushing so hard for an Independent to be apart of the State of Florida Primaries - considering it has been controlled by only 2 parties for over a century.

Bipartisan uses a natural competitive influence with VOTERS, basically blinding them to the errors within the elections. Americans no longer look for who would make the better leader... instead it becomes a competition of "Do Not Let The Other Guy Win". It isn't any wonder why so many Americans refuse to vote - because the choice for "None Of The Above" isn't available.

Good luck breaking the two-party system. It simply won't happen.

Americans (as a whole) like it because it puts the onus of "viewpoint reconciliation" where it belongs,... within the two parties.

Some people would rather have the electorate decide on issues associated with individual "third-parties". Most people wouldn't.

Why? Because we want to make the "executive decision" of accepting/rejecting one of two choices.

We do not want to decide on every minor issue.

Are Americans lazy..? Yes. Why..? Because we want those being paid to come up with policy to do their jobs, and present us with a simple binary choice.

We are a country of people too busy doing "life" to be bothered with doing "politics" as well.

Let the politicians do their jobs. Then we'll decide to either smack them down, or not.

It seems to me that one of the worst thing we could do right now is use the electronic voting booths. Because those have no paper trail (not detailing who voted for who, of course, but for who the vote was cast for) a technician could rig the machine in favor for any candidate. It is a flawed process right now.

Carter is just a partisan old windbag. And also the worst president EVER because of to many reasons to list.

Carter is just a partisan old windbag. And also the worst president EVER because of to many reasons to list.

President? Absolutely.

As an ex-president he is far more effective at things.

Before you bag the guy, you all should look what he does on the side.

He has probably done more for people then most of his detractors combined.

Especially here.....

Carter is just a partisan old windbag. And also the worst president EVER because of to many reasons to list.
Yeah, fuck Habitat for Humanity! Liberal pansies!

Until then, Carter looks like a silly anti-American gas-bag to the right
Um, could you explain exactly how a former American president is anti-American? Surely attacking former US presidents is a bit more anti-American than pointing out problems in the voting system? (I don't really believe that, but I'm using your logic.)

I guess I would need to uderstand the definition of the term Anti-American, but wouldn't a president accepting electorial donations from a communist country be considered this? I'm referring to the Clinton Campaign of course, which has been noted as "Chinagate", but John Kerry has been accussed of doing the same thing... http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40190

Um, could you explain exactly how a former American president is anti-American? Surely attacking former US presidents is a bit more anti-American than pointing out problems in the voting system? (I don't really believe that, but I'm using your logic.)

The rightwingers are offended by him because he had showed him to be anti-american by speaking for Cuba. I forget the quotes.....

They hate him for his Presidency as well so that makes him anti-american as well! ;)

I guess I would need to uderstand the definition of the term Anti-American, but wouldn't a president accepting electorial donations from a communist country be considered this?
I don't believe that communism is inherently anti-American. Unless that communist country is openly against America, then I don't think it is Anti-American.