NationStates Jolt Archive

Aye or nay.

Yikes I misspelt 'there' for 'their'.

Can't change it now, damn.

It doesn't matter. No matter who controls america, they will be corrupt and useless, seeking only to further their own gain.

Not necessary, we can police ourselves.

Teams of lawyers stand by to challenge the results.

erm... jah

Not necessary, we can police ourselves.

Teams of lawyers stand by to challenge the results.

Teams of lawers who will soon be rich...

I'm expecting that Bush will buy a state again to ensure he wins...

Teams of lawers who will soon be rich...

I'm expecting that Bush will buy a state again to ensure he wins...

Kerry is just as ready as Bush to contest the election. And yes, it is a good time to be a lawyer.

France or Russia or China should make this suggestion in the UN.

If the Bush/Cheyney Adminstration/Regime have nothing to hide, they should welcome it.

The monitors should come from places like Sweden, India, Ireland and South Africa which have minimal direct national interests in the outcome of the US elections. (Indian out-sourcing issues aside)

Kerry is just as ready as Bush to contest the election. And yes, it is a good time to be a lawyer.

A very good time... perhaps I should study law... :)

Ahh... power. the one thing that makes life worth living. and two men are fighting for it.

Looking good already...Go Florida!

Looking good already...Go Florida!

Had floridas vote been counted 4 years ago, Al Gore would have been president-and Iraq may never have happened... and if the conspiricy theory is correct, neither would 9/11.

Had floridas vote been counted 4 years ago, Al Gore would have been president-and Iraq may never have happened... and if the conspiricy theory is correct, neither would 9/11.
It seems pretty weird to me that they haven't learned anything. Don't they even want to get it right? If the computers are so unreliable why not use the old pen and paper system? And don't say it would be so slow, is the system fast now?

France or Russia or China should make this suggestion in the UN.

If the Bush/Cheyney Adminstration/Regime have nothing to hide, they should welcome it.

The monitors should come from places like Sweden, India, Ireland and South Africa which have minimal direct national interests in the outcome of the US elections. (Indian out-sourcing issues aside)

Perhaps we should monitor France, Russia, and China's elections? Oh wait! That would be a breach of sovereignty! But if you do it to the US, it's PERFECTLY fine! :rolleyes:

AH, throw out the voting system and make me overlord of the world!

I promise I wont be... too harsh. :D

Perhaps we should monitor France, Russia, and China's elections? Oh wait! That would be a breach of sovereignty! But if you do it to the US, it's PERFECTLY fine! :rolleyes:
Russia's elections are generally monitored...We all know already that China has no real democracy and France...of course they should be monitored too if there ever would be any doubts about their elections. Hasn't been this far. :rolleyes:

Had floridas vote been counted 4 years ago, Al Gore would have been president-and Iraq may never have happened... and if the conspiricy theory is correct, neither would 9/11.


it really scares me that so many people are so clueless about such an important issue.

Votes counted, state and federal supreme court descisions, ballot standards, florida law ect. are you even remotely aware of the issues?

If you want to talk about voter suppression, that is one thing( I dont agree with with it, but it is legitimate to discuss). If you want to talk about recounts then you are really ignorant.

it really scares me that so many people are so clueless about such an important issue.

Votes counted, state and federal supreme court descisions, ballot standards, florida law ect. are you even remotely aware of the issues?

If you want to talk about voter suppression, that is one thing( I dont agree with with it, but it is legitimate to discuss). If you want to talk about recounts then you are really ignorant.

To be honest I know little of the U.S Voting system. :(

To be honest I know little of the U.S Voting system. :(

I can tell you that it sucks. :p

I can tell you that it sucks. :p

I'm testing my knowlege of it now.

Perhaps we should monitor France, Russia, and China's elections? Oh wait! That would be a breach of sovereignty! But if you do it to the US, it's PERFECTLY fine! :rolleyes:
It's not a breach of sovereignty. Many elections in many countries are monitored each year.

France or Russia or China should make this suggestion in the UN.

If the Bush/Cheyney Adminstration/Regime have nothing to hide, they should welcome it.

The monitors should come from places like Sweden, India, Ireland and South Africa which have minimal direct national interests in the outcome of the US elections. (Indian out-sourcing issues aside)

How about Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea. I'm sure America wouldn't hesitate to pass judgment on their elections.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3724372.stm

I really don't know what to say. Unbelievable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3724372.stm

I really don't know what to say. Unbelievable.

That happens in all the states whether D or R controlled. Illinois/Chicago is famous for it.

We should stop the gerrymandering, one of the worst aspects of our system. Anyway, the UN is ineffectial at best. If they did anything it would just be political.

Yep, I think the UN should make a visit there....

The other thing that is alarming is there is no standard electoral...doesn't each state have their own ways of making ballot papers or something?

The land of free, beacon of freedom and democracy with a voting system which needs UN monitoring to see if it was all fair and legal? Strange. Let Florida show the way (not) how to do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3724372.stm

I really don't know what to say. Unbelievable.

You should see some of the districts. There is one that runs along a highway for about 10 miles. They do this more along racial lines than anything else.

Yep, I think the UN should make a visit there....

The other thing that is alarming is there is no standard electoral...doesn't each state have their own ways of making ballot papers or something?

Thats true.....and there is no ABSOLUTE right to even vote. The states can choose their electors to the electoral college in ANY WAY they want to. If they choose to let the employees of every 10th gas station choose them they could legally do so.

Is it a perfect system? No, but perfection is impossible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3724372.stm

I really don't know what to say. Unbelievable.

I almost find that hard to believe. You're absolutely right, it's unbelievable, especially coming from a country that claims to be the world's leading democracy, land of the free etc.

Anyway, personally, I think that the USA should do the same as our Finnish neighbours have done and get rid of the electoral college system and have a genuine popular vote for their President.

It's not a breach of sovereignty. Many elections in many countries are monitored each year.

So your reasoning that it doesnt breach sovereignty is because other nations do it? Doesn't seem too logical. I mean, should America invade other countries because other people do it?

So your reasoning that it doesnt breach sovereignty is because other nations do it? Doesn't seem too logical. I mean, should America invade other countries because other people do it?


The reason it isn't a breach of sovereignty is because they won't actually be interfering with the election process unless the country allows it. Read it- it's "UN monitors", not "UN enforcers". The UN can't make anyone do anything. They would just watch the proceedings, and tell the world if there's foul play. I don't see how you see that as a breach of sovereignty.

And for the record, I have no problem with UN monitors in France, Russia, or China- in fact, I think it would be great for every ostensibly democratic nation to be held to certain standards regarding their election process.

So they monitor it and do nothing? The point being even if there's "foul play" (which every election in the USA has if you didn't know)...

So your reasoning that it doesnt breach sovereignty is because other nations do it? Doesn't seem too logical. I mean, should America invade other countries because other people do it?

Sovereignity is affected if the UN tries to force the final desition, and that's something they never do. They just certify if what they observed held to international standards for a free and efective election. If they say it's good or crap doesn't affect anything, just the image of your system. But you shouldn't care what the rest of the world thinks, right?

Of course I don't care. I'm just another redneck American. :rolleyes:

So they monitor it and do nothing? The point being even if there's "foul play" (which every election in the USA has if you didn't know)...

Yes. That's exactly it. They observe the election, write up a report on it, and publicly release the report. The result being a centralized documentation of all the foul play that went on that is not subject to censorship by the US government.

So... what do you have against this?

please the u.n. has many interests lodged in this election..they can never be trully biased..they would gain so much if kerry won..i mean what international body wouldnt want control of the u.s...we all know if kerry gets elected he will bow and scrape at the u.n.s feet ...we control the u.s. not a bunch of puffed up diplomats, many from nations that have no understanding of the freedoms we have..how can you ever believe the u.n. could be unbiased in their review of our election...please wake up people and quit tyring to sell our lives to these vile currupted bastards...come on they propped up sadam while lining their own pockets with food for oil money....besides screw their world tax..if you want your lives controlled by these people there are plenty of other countries you can go live in..thanx

I said no..


Mainly cause it's a waste of their time... And will just be spun, one way or the other...

Had floridas vote been counted 4 years ago, Al Gore would have been president-and Iraq may never have happened... and if the conspiricy theory is correct, neither would 9/11.
1. The vote was counted, 6 times
2. 9/11 Conspiracy theories are all long shots at best, that is unless you believe the CIA killed JFK

You should see some of the districts. There is one that runs along a highway for about 10 miles. They do this more along racial lines than anything else.

*Blows whistle*

Race Card! Unsportsmanlike conduct! Personal Foul! Ten Yards! Still First Down!

They will find plenty of election irregularities. For example, Chicago, Illinois still has a goodly number of dead people who vote. In South Dakota the vote on Indian Reservations is often suspect. One never knows about West Virginia, after all, they are the state that had 118% turnout once. Iowa tends to have a sizable portion of cows that vote. It's all really amusing. But Palm Beach County in Florida is the best. They tend to have all sorts of problems and misadventures. For example, the Director of their board of Elections there who presided over the 2000 hanging chads debacle ran this fall on the platform of "I may be bad, but the other guy is worse." She lost the election, and shortly thereafter the other guy was arrested for Tax Evasion.

Yes. That's exactly it. They observe the election, write up a report on it, and publicly release the report. The result being a centralized documentation of all the foul play that went on that is not subject to censorship by the US government.

So... what do you have against this?

This is an issue of observing the practices of the parties, not the government. The UN would need consent from the Ds and Rs.

please the u.n. has many interests lodged in this election..they can never be trully biased..they would gain so much if kerry won..i mean what international body wouldnt want control of the u.s...we all know if kerry gets elected he will bow and scrape at the u.n.s feet ...we control the u.s. not a bunch of puffed up diplomats, many from nations that have no understanding of the freedoms we have..how can you ever believe the u.n. could be unbiased in their review of our election...please wake up people and quit tyring to sell our lives to these vile currupted bastards...come on they propped up sadam while lining their own pockets with food for oil money....besides screw their world tax..if you want your lives controlled by these people there are plenty of other countries you can go live in..thanx
OH MY GOD! WHY ARE SO MANY REPUBLICANS THIS STUPID!?!!!?

The UN is not just the Security Council. I think that they would be less biased than say, Republican or Democrat Americans. Do you disagree? Or are all Republicans saints?

America propped up Saddam for a long time too, making money off Iranian and Kurdish death. So don't pretend that the US Government isn't made up of "vile currupted bastards" too.

World Tax? Did you just make that one up? They're not trying to be a world government.

You are obliged to follow UN agreements, by your own government's laws.

*Blows whistle*

Race Card! Unsportsmanlike conduct! Personal Foul! Ten Yards! Still First Down!

Maybe so...but it is undeniably true.

Perhaps we should monitor France, Russia, and China's elections? Oh wait! That would be a breach of sovereignty! But if you do it to the US, it's PERFECTLY fine! :rolleyes:


It's kind of funny actually. During that whole Florida mess last time around we had a Federal Election here in Canada and all ballots were hand-counted and the election official in less than 24 hours. On pure logistics that is amazing considering the size of Canada and how far-flung some balloting locations are in Canada. Some of those balloting locations are closer to Moscow than Ottawa.

France or Russia or China should make this suggestion in the UN.

If the Bush/Cheyney Adminstration/Regime have nothing to hide, they should welcome it.

The monitors should come from places like Sweden, India, Ireland and South Africa which have minimal direct national interests in the outcome of the US elections. (Indian out-sourcing issues aside)
How about from Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Panama? Grenada?

It's kind of funny actually. During that whole Florida mess last time around we had a Federal Election here in Canada and all ballots were hand-counted and the election official in less than 24 hours. On pure logistics that is amazing considering the size of Canada and how far-flung some balloting locations are in Canada. Some of those balloting locations are closer to Moscow than Ottawa.

There are 30 million Canadians and 290 million Americans. Don't even try to compare the time it takes to count votes. Plus, we're lazy.

It's kind of funny actually. During that whole Florida mess last time around we had a Federal Election here in Canada and all ballots were hand-counted and the election official in less than 24 hours. On pure logistics that is amazing considering the size of Canada and how far-flung some balloting locations are in Canada. Some of those balloting locations are closer to Moscow than Ottawa.well...(;))...with voting precincts where one person get's together with himself and counts his vote...and then all three of the Canadian precincts take a minute to add their totals...

(just too easy a target...no offense, Canada/Canadians...i...i...just couldn't resist...)

Perhaps we should monitor France, Russia, and China's elections? Oh wait! That would be a breach of sovereignty! But if you do it to the US, it's PERFECTLY fine! :rolleyes:

As a US citizen I absolutely think we should have UN monitors present. As does Jimmy Carter http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/election.observers.ap/index.html

who feels our elections - particularly in Florida, imagine that - are likely to be as much of a debaucle this year as they were in 2000

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/carter.florida.ap/index.html

As a democratic country, I think we should embrace the idea of having impartial observers present. Afterall, we shouldn't have anything to hide, so why would the presence threaten our sovereignity?

As for this nonsense of touch screen and other computerized voting, I think its a sham. The very first election I participated in used paper ballots with circles you filled in with ink - similar to the answer sheets used on the SATs - which were then scanned into a reader. From my perspective, it is the best kind of ballot - the vote can't be lost due to a core dump or blown hard-drive and there are no hanging chads; also the ballot is remains around to be recounted if need be, unlike computerized data which can suddenly become corrupted.

Personally, I fear voter disenfranchisement due to a thuderstorm that knocks out the power to my polling place leaving me unable to vote, and thereby infringing on my hard-won constitutional right to have a (tiny) voice in the governance of my country.

But I digress. The point is, if the UN is willing to send observers, I say Welcome! Enjoy your stay in our country.

You should see some of the districts. There is one that runs along a highway for about 10 miles. They do this more along racial lines than anything else.No...it's not racial. It's political (which is just changing one deplorable practice for another).

When the US determined that we had enough Congressmen (women/persons/fill-in-the-blank) and decided that instead of ADDING more when population grew in a state/states they would "shift" the number of Representatives from state to state to match the population shift, this practice began on a national level after EVERY census. Each census determines where the populace is. Then, the number of Congressional Representatives is "re-apportioned". If state "A" grew, and states "B" and "C" lost population, it could wind up that both states "B" and "C" loss a Representative, and state "A" gains 2.

This is when they (and "they" is just about whichever party is in power where ever and when ever redistricting takes place) start drawing absurdly shaped districts to maximize the representation of their own party in as many districts as possible.

This even has a name - "Gerrymandering" - named for a man (Elbridge Gerry) who was responsible for the redistricting of Massechusetts in 1812 (he was governor of Mass. at the time), and the shape of a salamander - which is what the "redistricted" shape of Essex county looked like on a map.

Elbridge, who lived from 1744 - 1814, was appropriately punished for his antics...we made him Vice President of the United States in 1813 (which is probably what killed him in 1814).

DEFINITION - Gerrymander: 1. to divide (a voting area) in such a way as to give an unfair advantage to one political party. 2. to manipulate unfairly; falsify to gain advantage. v.i. to engage in gerrymandering. n. a redistricting of voting districts to the advantage of one party.

Perhaps we should monitor France, Russia, and China's elections? Oh wait! That would be a breach of sovereignty! But if you do it to the US, it's PERFECTLY fine! :rolleyes:
Typical American responce. Attacking Iraq becaue you "dislike" their leader, is breaching sovereignty.
Or are you afraid of what UN election monitors would find something? Like the 20,000 africanamericans that were demed "not fit" to vote in Florida, in 2000. People who would have in most cases voted for Gore. All during the time GWB's brother was state senator. And he still is.

Typical American responce. Attacking Iraq becaue you "dislike" their leader, is breaching sovereignty.
Or are you afraid of what UN election monitors would find something? Like the 20,000 africanamericans that were demed "not fit" to vote in Florida, in 2000. People who would have in most cases voted for Gore. All during the time GWB's brother was state senator. And he still is.

but actually, Jeb Bush was - and still is - Governor of Florida, not a senator

Typical American responce. Attacking Iraq becaue you "dislike" their leader, is breaching sovereignty.
Or are you afraid of what UN election monitors would find something? Like the 20,000 africanamericans that were demed "not fit" to vote in Florida, in 2000. People who would have in most cases voted for Gore. All during the time GWB's brother was state senator. And he still is.

Yep...and NOT ONE person came forward to say that they were ACTUALLY denied the right to vote....even though none of us has an actual "right" to vote for President. Read the Constitution....you won't find it anywhere.

[QUOTE=Siljhouettes]OH MY GOD! WHY ARE SO MANY REPUBLICANS THIS STUPID!?!!!?

QUOTE]

why do you assume i am republican? for clarity in the future i am an independant conservative...most republicans represent my values about as much as the democrats.... which is very little.. both parties are more in touch with their wallets than my interests...my point is this..we need to handle our business the world at large has no place in policing our citizens..thanx

It is OUR election NOT the UNs.

It is OUR election NOT the UNs.
:headbang:

why does every gore/kerry supporter forget the dem's effort to block the votes of thousands of florida citizens serving overseas in our armed forces during the 2000 election...they are the ones protecting the rights we enjoy..
yet they were almost denied the rights they are giving us...you revisionists should shut up give all the facts or none thanx

Enodscopia, by that argument, should UN election observers even exist? After all, NO election is the UNs. The elections in Afganistan and Iraq aren't the UNs, nor are they the USAs. So doesnt' that mean we shouldnn't be there observing either?

No...it's not racial. It's political (which is just changing one deplorable practice for another).

When the US determined that we had enough Congressmen (women/persons/fill-in-the-blank) and decided that instead of ADDING more when population grew in a state/states they would "shift" the number of Representatives from state to state to match the population shift, this practice began on a national level after EVERY census. Each census determines where the populace is. Then, the number of Congressional Representatives is "re-apportioned". If state "A" grew, and states "B" and "C" lost population, it could wind up that both states "B" and "C" loss a Representative, and state "A" gains 2.

This is when they (and "they" is just about whichever party is in power where ever and when ever redistricting takes place) start drawing absurdly shaped districts to maximize the representation of their own party in as many districts as possible.

This even has a name - "Gerrymandering" - named for a man (Elbridge Gerry) who was responsible for the redistricting of Massechusetts in 1812 (he was governor of Mass. at the time), and the shape of a salamander - which is what the "redistricted" shape of Essex county looked like on a map.

Elbridge, who lived from 1744 - 1814, was appropriately punished for his antics...we made him Vice President of the United States in 1813 (which is probably what killed him in 1814).

DEFINITION - Gerrymander: 1. to divide (a voting area) in such a way as to give an unfair advantage to one political party. 2. to manipulate unfairly; falsify to gain advantage. v.i. to engage in gerrymandering. n. a redistricting of voting districts to the advantage of one party.

during the last redistricting i had the honor of sitting in on our legislature committee charged with redrawing the lines...one person actually said he would not give his approval to a district that had less than 76% black voters in it...why becuase the encumbant was democrat and most black voters vote dem....so it is both racial and political because the two tie together so closely...is it fair...not by a long, longn shot ....thanx

Personally, I think the UN should be there; if not for anything else than to strengthen the faith of other countries in the american democracy.
We all know they have no power to alter anything (America confessed they had no real reason to attack Iraq except Saddam, and still the UN did NOT take any steps against the USA for any reparations whatsoever).
As long as there is a country that only abides the rules appealing to it, the sytem of the UN simply DOES NOT WORK!

The UN is far too corrupt to monitor even a babys diapers.

The USA is self sufficient - we do not need anyone to confirm the validity of our ballots or their counting.

That happens in all the states whether D or R controlled. Illinois/Chicago is famous for it.

Yeah, and I think the problem is that the system favors 2 parties, so when it comes time to redistrict, it's in the majority favor to make the other sides district smaller. When you have 3 or more parties involved, everyone is out to make their own districts larger.

I live in travis county, where a lot of the problem is as well. They took our district, which is mostly democrat, and split it into 3. It's freakin sad, 3 districts from far away swoop in and meet in Austin. One of them takes special care to come far enough south just to take out the University if Texas, putting it in a district with mostly conservatives 100 miles away in the city in that district.

I voted no, but now that I've heard about the problems with the electronic voting machines, I want to change my vote to yes, with reservations. We definitely need this election to be closely monitored, but I don't think the UN as an organization is any more capable of monitoring our elections fairly than anyone else. This is, after all, the UN that has failed to condemn the genocide in Somalia just because the French have a veto and oil interests there.

Russia's elections are generally monitored...We all know already that China has no real democracy and France...

Huh, France, no fair elections? Evidence please?

Anyway, the EU is sending monitors to the US election. Those will report to the EU commission.

Huh, France, no fair elections? Evidence please?

Anyway, the EU is sending monitors to the US election. Those will report to the EU commission.
my original post:

Russia's elections are generally monitored...We all know already that China has no real democracy and France...of course they should be monitored too if there ever would be any doubts about their elections. Hasn't been this far.

..if there would be doubts about their elections (being fair). Hasn't been this far.

Exactly what you want me to proof? You realise that the last sentence is referring to France? Alright maybe I should have written it more clearly.

This is an issue of observing the practices of the parties, not the government. The UN would need consent from the Ds and Rs.
Let's not forget the Green, Libertarians, Constitutional and Free Soilers

No, the UN should not have authority over any nations elections, even as a policing force. I personally don't feel that it is the place of the UN to control the elections in individual countries. Perhaps if a non-government force were to come in before the election to work out the bugs in the machines, it would be different, but I think having the UN here would just show too much that the US needs handholding. And while I don't like Bush, I don't agree with anything he's done in office, and I hope beyond hope he's voted out of office, I don't feel that this would be an appropriate use of the authority of the UN.

-- Magistrate Dex Beeblebrox of Hoopy Froodonia

seeing as how we're part of the OCSE our elections are already technicaly monitored and have been activly in the past (they were there for the Califorina re-vote)

so I see no reason why we should hand over even a shread of power to those murdering basterds who have infested their way into new york

seeing as how we're part of the OCSE our elections are already technicaly monitored and have been activly in the past (they were there for the Califorina re-vote)

so I see no reason why we should hand over even a shread of power to those murdering basterds who have infested their way into new york
By "infested their way into new york" do you mean that the UN building was built there after the United States wrote the UN Charter and held a conference in San Fransisco so that all these nations could join?

By "infested their way into new york" do you mean that the UN building was built there after the United States wrote the UN Charter and held a conference in San Fransisco so that all these nations could join?

not the building but the people who've found themselves there now

No, the UN should not have authority over any nations elections, even as a policing force. I personally don't feel that it is the place of the UN to control the elections in individual countries. Perhaps if a non-government force were to come in before the election to work out the bugs in the machines, it would be different, but I think having the UN here would just show too much that the US needs handholding. And while I don't like Bush, I don't agree with anything he's done in office, and I hope beyond hope he's voted out of office, I don't feel that this would be an appropriate use of the authority of the UN.

-- Magistrate Dex Beeblebrox of Hoopy Froodonia

Hmm. You say you don't think the UN should control elections in countries? That's an interesting opinion... One shared by many people, including the UN itself.

The UN can't enforce anything. It doesn't want to. It's a diplomatic organization, not a governing one.

What part of "monitors" makes you think "police"? They want to watch. They're not gonna do anything but tell people what they see happening. I know politicians tend to discourage that kind of thing, but it's not bad, I promise :D

No, the UN should not have authority over any nations elections, even as a policing force. I personally don't feel that it is the place of the UN to control the elections in individual countries. Perhaps if a non-government force were to come in before the election to work out the bugs in the machines, it would be different, but I think having the UN here would just show too much that the US needs handholding. And while I don't like Bush, I don't agree with anything he's done in office, and I hope beyond hope he's voted out of office, I don't feel that this would be an appropriate use of the authority of the UN.

-- Magistrate Dex Beeblebrox of Hoopy Froodonia

You're wrong! the UN wouldn't be there to control or redirect the elections; mainly to observe the happenings and pursue any and all violations, regardless which party.

I just thought that this quote by Nelson Mandela was relevant;
If the United States of America or Britain is having elections, they don't ask for observers from Africa or from Asia. But when we have elections, they want observers.

Teams of lawers who will soon be rich...

I'm expecting that Bush will buy a state again to ensure he wins...

Which state do you reckon he will buy this time?????

Yikes I misspelt 'there' for 'their'.

Can't change it now, damn.No prob, I fixed it up for ya =p

The UN wouldn't be policing the election. Just observing it. UN monitors aren't authorized to interfere, even if the election is bogus. They watch the election, file a report and tell everyone what they saw. That's it. They do not "run the election" or participate in it. They just watch.