NationStates Jolt Archive

This was printed in todays paper in Britain.

After the fiasco of 2000, the OSCE is for the first time sending election monitors to observe an American presidential election. The OSCE, which more usually monitors elections in troublespots such as the Balkans of Belarus, is dispatching about 100 observers to 20 states. Some American politicians are outraged. "We are not a country oppressed by tyranny and oppression" complains Jeff Miller, a Florida congressman. "We are a free nation built upon a foundation of citizen democracy."

For those who don't know, the OSCE is a European organisation who normally monitor elections in former soviet countries. Their website is here (http://www.osce.org).

You can read OSCE's own report here (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/field_activities/?election=2004us), which contradicts aspects of The Times article, but the essence is true.

It appears that there are forces within the US administration who are concerned that there may be attempts to fix this election. I wonder why they could think that?

Any comments?

it seems to me as a student of politics that this rigging does not only apply to the presidential election. a well respected political observer writing for the guardian in the uk said only 5% of the congressional elections were actual contests. we have safe seats in Britain but that is a bit silly

only 5% of the congressional elections were actual contests. we have safe seats in Britain but that is a bit silly
I'd agree. I don't understand the safe-seat mentality myself, why do people do that? I probably need a psycologist to answer that though. My seat used to be the safest Tory seat in Scotland, but still got boosted out in '97. Should be a decent contest this time round, unfortunately that means the Lib Dems won't get a look in. I'm even tempted to vote Tory just to shake up Mr Blair.

Why should American politicians be outraged? This would just be another glorious opportunity to prove to the world that America is the beacon of democracy that it claims to be.

Why should American politicians be outraged? This would just be another glorious opportunity to prove to the world that America is the beacon of democracy that it claims to be.
It makes two points.

Firstly: Implies that the election in 2000 was a fraud which casts doubts over the current presidents legitimacy. Particularly as this isn't some schmuck like Moore, but a request by a senior US official to one of the most respected international organisations.

Secondly: Implies that attempts will be made at similar fraud in this election.

Of course we all know that both of these implications are probably true, and the Republican congressman wasn't to happy. Figures.

Nobody likes an audit.

But it is about time the US electoral system was subjected to scrutiny; simply saying "we're the best democracy in the world, we don't need monitoring" shows a disturbing degree of arrogance and complacency. Accepting an absence of corruption as given is the surest way to create an environment in which it will flourish.

You can tell the guy was really angry in the quote:
"We are not a country oppressed by tyranny and oppression."
That's an anger mistake. Off the cuff kinda thing.

The implication is bad, sending them away creates and equally bad implication. It's a Catch 22. The best thing to do is prove them wrong and be above board in our election. The worst thing that could happen is they discover irregularities. Then, I don't know...everyone meet at my place for class war....bring chips.

Puh-leeze!

A transparent effort by fellow socialists from europe.
The Kerry campaign is all geared up voter fraud their way to the White House if nescessary. These euro-peons are coming to observe so that they can later say "nope, didn't see any voter fraud, did you see any voter fraud? Me neither!" Like a hollyweird movie plot, I can see this one from a mile away.

Why should American politicians be outraged? This would just be another glorious opportunity to prove to the world that America is the beacon of democracy that it claims to be.


Because it is not the "beacon of democracy it claims to be" and every politician knows it.

Puh-leeze!

A transparent effort by fellow socialists from europe.
The Kerry campaign is all geared up voter fraud their way to the White House if nescessary. These euro-peons are coming to observe so that they can later say "nope, didn't see any voter fraud, did you see any voter fraud? Me neither!" Like a hollyweird movie plot, I can see this one from a mile away.
As opposed to Bush rigging the election? Oh, that's right, he's far too moral and upstanding to do something as underhanded as stealing an election and subverting the will of the American people. Oh, shit, wait. He did that already.

I'm fine with it. Sure, it might not reflect perfectly on our political system, but everyone knows, deep down, that it's corrupt, just like Iran's, or France's or England's. They just don't want to admit it.

As opposed to Bush rigging the election? Oh, that's right, he's far too moral and upstanding to do something as underhanded as stealing an election and subverting the will of the American people. Oh, shit, wait. He did that already.

You score 1.5 out of 10.
Senseless tirade that doesn't answer my point.
If Gore had sucessfully invalidated the military vote, you'd be calling me names for saying he stole the election. And Kerry is all set up to repeat 2000, but to get the advantage for himself first. Will he have stolen the election if he wins? Get a brain, man. Or at least use it occasionally to avoid atrophy.

What makes this election so fraught with peril is that, for the first time, many precincts will be using computers and touch screens for voting.
These systems have failed repeatedly at demonstrations, and are susceptible to hacking (http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5054088.html). Election officials will have little time to become familiar with the machines before Nov. 2.
All kinds of voter registration irregularities have been caused by private groups paying people to register voters. (http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/10/13/25715/397)
I'll still be surprised if we see more than 60% turnout. Australia has the right idea. If you're going to have a democracy you should make voting manditory.

So what. A bunch of Anti-semite eurotrash show up here to moniter elections. :rolleyes: Ignore them, evolution has.

A transparent effort by fellow socialists from europe.
Why are you so sure that these monitors are socialist, or that they would prefer a Kerry victory? Surely you must agree that they will be more impartial than any Americans could ever be?

Fraud, Irregularities? In AMERIKA?

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/22/loc_blackwell22.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-hood22oct22,1,2094887.story?coll=la-home-headlines http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/10/22/20041022-A1-00.htm
Intimidation?
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/1437244
http://www.caseohio.org/CaseOhio/BlackwellsOhiosHarris.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C15FC3C5E0C768DDDA90994DC404482
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040920fa_fact
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/9915462.htm?1c
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1014reporter14.html
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/10/05/a6a_voterreg_1005.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apelection_story.asp?category=1135&slug=Ballot%20Dispute
These are just a sample of the stories and information out there about what's going on. What does Luntz say in Financial Times about the election?

ELECTION – LUNTZ ADVISES, JUST STAY AWAY FROM THE FACTS AND YOU'LL BE FINE: Republican pollster Frank Luntz writes in the Financial Times that it's time for Bush to get nervous about the election. He says in order to connect with voters, the GOP candidate should "forget about using statistics" when talking about the economy and instead reference terrorism. Voters "feel squeezed by reduced employee benefits and higher prices," advises Luntz, so Bush is on better footing talking about terror. And if anyone points out the president "should not have chosen tax cuts over national security"? In that case, Luntz says, Bush has to twist the focus away from those tax cuts by attacking Kerry's record in the Senate.

Get a brain, man. Or at least use it occasionally to avoid atrophy.

See, this is the sort of rhetoric that takes the pleasure out of debating with the common man. Is it truly impossible to convey a message without insulting the recepient, and making a fool of oneself in the process?

It's too late for observers to do much good. They have already been busy illegally purging files of registered voters, getting phony support for Nader, getting innocent people listed as felons just to keep them from voting, setting up procedures to block any paper trail, etc.

The big manufacturer of voter computer machines, slated to go into use in OHIO, is quoted as saying "I will do ANYTHING to see George W. Bush elected."

Oh, did I mention his machines have failed in tests, and provide no paper trail for tracking fraud and misuse?

What makes this election so fraught with peril is that, for the first time, many precincts will be using computers and touch screens for voting.
These systems have failed repeatedly at demonstrations, and are susceptible to hacking (http://news.com.com/2100-1009_3-5054088.html). Election officials will have little time to become familiar with the machines before Nov. 2.
All kinds of voter registration irregularities have been caused by private groups paying people to register voters. (http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/10/13/25715/397)
I'll still be surprised if we see more than 60% turnout. Australia has the right idea. If you're going to have a democracy you should make voting manditory.