NationStates Jolt Archive


##what if other Countries offer observers to look out for cheating @ US elections?

OceanDrive2
28-11-2007, 19:26
What if the Govs of other countries offer observers, to look out for cheating @ US elections?
Obviously the observers will ask for full access.

Should the US gov accept this offer?
Hydesland
28-11-2007, 19:34
Doesn't have to be from other governments, could just be from a private organisation. Although there is a danger of them accepting bribes. Actually fuck that, have the UN do it.
Kecibukia
28-11-2007, 20:00
Doesn't have to be from other governments, could just be from a private organisation. Although there is a danger of them accepting bribes. Actually fuck that, have the UN do it.

Which still doesn't negate the danger.
IDF
28-11-2007, 20:06
Which still doesn't negate the danger.

Especially since the UN has a long history of accepting bribes.
The Alma Mater
28-11-2007, 20:25
Bush is not running this time. Jeb has no reason to steal some votes ;)
Andaluciae
28-11-2007, 20:32
Uhhh...the US government already has. There were international observers in 2004, from the EU if I recall correctly.
OceanDrive2
28-11-2007, 20:47
Bush is not running this time. Jeb has no reason to steal some votes ;)LOL..

true true
Gift-of-god
28-11-2007, 20:53
Uhhh...the US government already has. There were international observers in 2004, from the EU if I recall correctly.

You do recall correctly. It was the first time a US presidential elction was 'observed'. The final report:

http://osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.pdf
New Potomac
28-11-2007, 21:57
What if the Govs of other countries offer observers, to look out for cheating @ US elections?
Obviously the observers will ask for full access.

Should the US gov accept this offer?

The Democratic party would never agree to it because it would expose the level of voting fraud that helps the Dems win elections.
Fleckenstein
28-11-2007, 22:38
The Democratic party would never agree to it because it would expose the level of voting fraud that helps the Dems win elections.

Like how they stole 2000? and 2004?

No, the only two stolen elections in US history have been done by Republicans. 1876, 2000.
HSH Prince Eric
29-11-2007, 00:14
People abroad simply have no clue. European media is so biased.

Almost all voter fraud is to the benefit DNC. And that's just what is legally fraud. The disgusting voter drives perpetrated by the NAACP and other groups that herd people to the polls to vote for who they say is just as bad as anything.
[NS]Click Stand
29-11-2007, 00:30
We could just designate a country to vote for us instead.
Eureka Australis
29-11-2007, 00:53
How would such outside monitors prevent the widespread voter caging which was so rampant against Blacks and other minorities by the GOP last time?
Vetalia
29-11-2007, 01:04
Like how they stole 2000? and 2004?

No, the only two stolen elections in US history have been done by Republicans. 1876, 2000.

2000 wasn't stolen. Bush won the Electoral College votes, and ultimately that's what matters in the US presidential election system. Now, mind you, this is a pretty clear sign that the electoral college sucks, but it's legitimate all the same.

Don't forget the Democrats in 1960 when it comes to stolen elections...that blows 2000 out of the water when it comes to corruption and controversy. It's pretty clear Kennedy won because of Mafia-aided voting fraud in Chicago, among other places. If you're looking for a real stolen election, that one's a lot more plausible than 2000. So, the result is that both parties "stole" one election each, merely supporting the oft-repeated statement that both are equally as vile as one another.
Sel Appa
29-11-2007, 01:08
They really should. I wouldn't be surprised if they found huge abuses in 2000 and 2004.
Fleckenstein
29-11-2007, 01:21
2000 wasn't stolen. Bush won the Electoral College votes, and ultimately that's what matters in the US presidential election system. Now, mind you, this is a pretty clear sign that the electoral college sucks, but it's legitimate all the same.

Way to ignore 1876. Like 2000, state electoral college votes were determined by an unelected judiciary that contained a majority of Republicans. Hell, 1876 was worse because they overturned three states, and then Hayes appointed one of his defense lawyers from the Election Commission to Sec of State and another defense lawyer to the SCOTUS.

Don't forget the Democrats in 1960 when it comes to stolen elections...that blows 2000 out of the water when it comes to corruption and controversy. It's pretty clear Kennedy won because of Mafia-aided voting fraud in Chicago, among other places. If you're looking for a real stolen election, that one's a lot more plausible than 2000. So, the result is that both parties "stole" one election each, merely supporting the oft-repeated statement that both are equally as vile as one another.

Lyndon Johnson had his own problems in Texas with election fraud during his Senate (?), too. I don't mean to declare Democrats angelic, because they definitely aren't. :p
CoallitionOfTheWilling
29-11-2007, 01:47
Lulz.

What about the Corrupt Bargain by John Quincy Adams?
Thumbless Pete Crabbe
29-11-2007, 02:16
Ah, is the DNC already mapping out their list of excuses for the loss in '08? Can't say I blame them. :p
Dododecapod
29-11-2007, 02:17
Lulz.

What about the Corrupt Bargain by John Quincy Adams?

Modern analysis questions whether there was any collusion in 1824. Aside from Andrew Jackson's accusations, and entirely reasonable suspicion, there's no actual evidence of a bargain being made.

Clay was, notably, an opponent of Jackson's from day one. His throwing his support behind Adams when it was clear he himself had no chance of success, is not actually surprising.
Desperate Measures
29-11-2007, 02:23
Oh my God... we'd bomb that country afterwards we'd be so embarrassed. We would just bomb them and bomb them and bomb them until we couldn't hear their laughter anymore.
Marrakech II
29-11-2007, 04:14
Like how they stole 2000? and 2004?

No, the only two stolen elections in US history have been done by Republicans. 1876, 2000.

Democrats stole the last governers election in Washington State.

Plenty of monkey business on all sides.
Delator
29-11-2007, 09:19
Uhhh...the US government already has. There were international observers in 2004, from the EU if I recall correctly.

You do recall correctly. It was the first time a US presidential elction was 'observed'. The final report:

http://osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.pdf

I find this interesting...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/interactive/wilkinson_osce.html

The U.S. is a member of OSCE. And just as it did for the Presidential elections in 1996 and 2000 – and the mid-term elections in 1998 and the 2002 elections -- the U.S. has invited an OSCE election observer team to observe this fall’s Presidential elections. The OSCE did not send observers in 1996, 1998 and 2000 although they were invited.
Laerod
29-11-2007, 10:47
What if the Govs of other countries offer observers, to look out for cheating @ US elections?
Obviously the observers will ask for full access.

Should the US gov accept this offer?Weren't there impartial observers around during the last presidential election on invitation of the Bush administration?
Gauthier
29-11-2007, 10:56
Ah, is the DNC already mapping out their list of excuses for the loss in '08? Can't say I blame them. :p

Yeah, and let's not forget Karl "The Architect" Rove said that the Republicans would gain seats in Congress during November '06.

:D
JuNii
29-11-2007, 18:01
What if the Govs of other countries offer observers, to look out for cheating @ US elections?
Obviously the observers will ask for full access.

Should the US gov accept this offer?

I'ld welcome them.

heck, I've been calling for election observers ever since my friend's mother's registration card arrived in his mail. (she's been dead for years and suddenly she switched from Rep to Dem.)
Laerod
29-11-2007, 18:02
I'ld welcome them.

heck, I've been calling for election observers ever since my friend's mother's registration card arrived in his mail. (she's been dead for years and suddenly she switched from Rep to Dem.)Yeah. My dad tells me now that my American granddad is dead, he votes Democrat. (My granddad, not my dad).
Khadgar
29-11-2007, 18:28
Yeah. My dad tells me now that my American granddad is dead, he votes Democrat. (My granddad, not my dad).

The dead rise! (and vote)
Laerod
29-11-2007, 18:34
The dead rise! (and vote)Oh noes! :eek:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Living-Thread.jpg

A sign of things to come?
JuNii
29-11-2007, 18:46
The dead rise! (and vote)

*wonders what issues the dead consider important...*
IDF
29-11-2007, 20:08
Yeah. My dad tells me now that my American granddad is dead, he votes Democrat. (My granddad, not my dad).

That is especially true if he lived in Chicago. My grandfather (who has been dead for almost 30 years) was on the Cook County voting roles a few years ago as a democrat. Every 4 years he voted for Stroger and Daley.
Cryptic Nightmare
30-11-2007, 06:41
What if the Govs of other countries offer observers, to look out for cheating @ US elections?
Obviously the observers will ask for full access.

Should the US gov accept this offer?



No. To high a chance they may mess with it to get someone they like in power, and americans can handle this alone anyway....Maybe.
Mirkana
30-11-2007, 06:42
We did do it, if anyone hasn't noticed the report posted earlier. I did - I read the whole damn thing (it's long, but I'm a born speed-reader).

Anyway, the observers found no major issues with the system. They mentioned reports of attempts to disenfranchise minorities, but found no evidence. Their biggest complaint was the inconsistent voting rights of felons - according to the OSCE, we should allow felons to vote once their terms are up. Many states do not do this. They also noted that the system was not designed to support international observers.

It was very interesting to see an analysis of the US electoral system from an outsider's point of view.