Europeans To Monitor American Voters 1867
shonagon53 writes "The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy. But since the Florida 2000 fiasco, things have changed.
Europe's famous Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) will now be monitoring the U.S. elections. The institution normally monitors elections in third world countries in transition, and in crisis areas or regions where civil wars have destabilized the political process. In november, the OSCE will be monitoring local and state elections in Kazakhstan, Skopje, Eastern Congo, Ouagadougou and... the United States.
As
the BBC reports, for some Americans this comes as a humiliation; others see it as a necessity, since they have lost trust in the American election process."
mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow, I feel the OSCE may help, but I doubt that the help will really be enough.
Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:4, Insightful)
A nitpick, I know, but this is not strictly true. You've had a civil war, after all, which does not make it stable. There's quite a few other countries with as good, or better, record in this respect.
This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, no. (Score:1, Insightful)
Why the hell would we Europeans care? Americans are old and capable enough to take care of themselves and their elections. They are also old and capable enough to fuck themselves up the ass with a toiletbrush if they want to. Point is, they can take care of their business and by now. Let them hold their elections, use the money for more important crap, which definitely excludes baby-sitting the US.
Two ways this can go (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Observers claim they see problems. They might be telling the truth. They might be lying. Everyone gets upset. We never find out conclusively one way or the other.
I hope they bring their video cameras.
Lost faith? (Score:4, Insightful)
soldiers need help (Score:1, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, this is necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused on this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with having foreign nations monitor a political system for fairness is the the country will someday have to deal with the nations reviewing it on a foreign-relations basis. Ulterior motives and vested intersts will abound.
Huh? "Most stable?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? By whom? By Americans. Just like the German system is 'known' as being the most stable etc etc by Germans, the Finnish system is 'known' as being the most stable etc etc by Finns, etc.
Sorry, but I stop reading at that point. Anyone who says something like that needs to do a bit of research. Objectively, how do you mention stability? By lives lost in wars? Civil wars waged? People in prison as a percentage of the population? The relationship between percentage of votes cast and actual representation? Freedom ensconced in the constitution? Hanging or pregnant Chads? And by those citeria, are you still the most stable? And then following on, are you "known" to be the most stable? By whom? By the Chinese? By young Arabs? By the French?
I could go on but I am getting tired trying to bridge a gap of this magnitude...
Re:Uhm, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhm, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the outcome of a U.S. election would have any global relevance, or have any bearing on the peace, security or economic health of the rest of the world.
Re:Uhm, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:1, Insightful)
The US election was fine (Score:1, Insightful)
The voting system isn't perfect - never has been. People hate Bush, look at the legal battle and recounting (which Gore wanted) and the fact that he didn't have the majority vote nationwide, and think he somehow cheated.
The only major flaw I see is the one that has all attention focused on the 2 inferior candidates. Oh, that and Diebold voting machines. But then, I could be blind.
The biggest problem with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
They have lost trust in the American election... (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, the election has been rigged... and it was done two years ago. I can't help but feel derision for anyone who either A) doesn't point that out or B) treat it as so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning.
When they steal our choice from us, please note that it's not in some dangling chads on ballots that should be awarded to Kerry, it was when they only allowed us the choice between Kerry and Bush. Neither are acceptable.
What's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why shouldn't the same be true for elections?
* Yes, audits of public (and certain private) companies are mandatory not voluntary, but it's the principle of the matter that applies.
Monitoring is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (Score:3, Insightful)
Or Chile [thirdworldtraveler.com]?
Or Haiti and Venezuela [indymedia.org.uk]?
Or maybe the one of the myriad other countries that have seen similar US interference?
Help me out here, I'm confused ...
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Bush wins both the popular and electoral votes in November then what will you find to complain about?
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Because no one monitored anybody else's elections in the 19th century.
Re:Bah (Score:4, Insightful)
No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?
Several reasons:
I am sure there are more.
Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (Score:5, Insightful)
Countries like Switzerland & Australia view the 2000 presidential election as a farce
Erm, yes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Using popular vote in the United States isn't as easy as you think it would be. In a country with 150 million votes cast (assuming 1/2 vote) how close would the vote have to be before you're doing a full recount? 1%? Do you think the election would be decided by 1.5 million votes? I think that's pretty realistic, and then you're stuck recounting the whole damn country.
Not to mention the fact that you'd have to streamline the entire country's voting process. Everyone would have to vote using the same format with all the same candidates.
Think about it.
I'm by no means saying the current method of electing officals in the US is perfect, but the solution isn't nearly as easy as you make it sound.
Re:Uhm, no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at what the result in Florida in 2000 has meant for Europe. Do you think that a Gore administration would have taken such a hostile stance towards Germany or France? Do you think French and German businesses have lost money because of the current political climate in the US? Of course!
So this is not Europe trying to babysit America. Rather it is Europe treating America as an equal, and standing up for its own interests. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Re:2000 election (Score:1, Insightful)
It may be that the people illegally barred from voting were statistically significant, and the vote-counting issue may have been an attempt to distract you from more serious problems.
News programmes like to have something to talk about (as do their viewers), so while you're all scrutinising the last few florida votes or making jokes about the layout of ballot papers, nobody was looking at the people being turned away from polling booths, nor at the polling machines systematically "breaking" when you attempt to vote for the wrong candidate.
Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sadly, this is necessary (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd have to agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is nothing to hide then there is everything to gain by proving that any given democracy is a true democracy.
Re:US votes? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've run some statistics on voting power per person (defined as the odds that your vote will decide your state multiplied by your state's electoral votes), and had to go back and doublecheck my math--a Florida voter's voting influence is orders of magnitude higher than mine (I am an Alabamian, sadly.)
The electoral college system is a horrid system--it promotes two candidates that try to be as much like each other as possible to the exclusion of third-party candidates (like we have now), and effectively disenfranchises lots of people. It can result in the election of a candidate even though a majority of the populace prefers the opponent through the "spoiler" phenomenon (Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000. Had Perot not been there, Bush probably would have won; had Nader not been there, Gore likely would have won.)
We need something else badly. Approval voting, Condorcet voting, or any of those other systems would be best, but even a straight primary-runoff system (as is used in American municipal elections) would be better than the electoral college.
Unfortunately a tremendous procedural inertia is built into the American system; attempting to use the political process to change the way politics is conducted requires a sustained, intense political effort-of-will, since the process for amending the US Constitution is so difficult. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (Pelor only knows what sorts of crazy amendments we'd be stuck with otherwise--google "Alabama constitution" for a demonstration), but it means the voting process won't be changed anytime soon.
You've got to be joking! (Score:3, Insightful)
> most stable democracy.
Not to cast aspersions, but by which criteria do you make this statement?
If we allow that the US actually is a democracy:
- many other democracies have been around longer
- many other democracies have not been subjected to a civil war
- many other democracies have not had in-office Presidents assassinated
- many other democracies have not fought as many wars
- many other democracies have lower crime rates
I'd go on, but hopefully the point is now made - the US is a lot of things (good and bad), but calling it the "most stable democracy" is really pushing it.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a senate: to keep the more populous states from walking all over the less populous states.
It's a good system overall, though I think changing the way electors are apportioned would be a good modification.
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Popular vote is ok and all, but I'd like to have an instant runoff system if the U.S. ever converts to directly electing Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Doing so will require changing the Constitution, and trashing a portion of the federalism it embodies.
The Federal government was created to provide for a common defense for the states, and to standardize a few other things -- like bankruptcy law. The Federal government was never meant to have so much power as it does now. If the federal government's power were to be once again limited, it would matter less who was President.
I think that's the right way to go -- not to popularly elect the 'king', but instead to remove the king's power and retore power to those institutions closer to and more accountable to the people -- state and local governments.
Then the Federal government will go back to being the represtentative of the states in foreign policy, and running the Navy on the State's behalf.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Plurality voting encourages strategic (as opposed to honest) voting, and thus does a terrible job of representing the genuine desires of the electorate. A Borda [condorcet.org]/Condorcet [condorcet.org] system or approval [condorcet.org] voting system would allow people to honestly portray their preferences without ever needing to be concerned about "throwing away" their votes.
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:3, Insightful)
Even during the Civil War, the USA (not the CSA; don't know enought about it) was stable, functioning republic: there were elections, and the peaceful transfer of power from defeated incumbents to victorious opponents.
So, do you have any examples of modern replublican democracies that are as old as the US? England comes closest, I think. The "constitutional monarchy with parliament" hasn't been overthrown since Cromwell, has it?
Re:2000 election (Score:3, Insightful)
The day we start deciding presidents based on chance is a sad day indeed.
Neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote in either the nation or in Florida. In fact, in both the differences were statistically insignificant.
This is a load of bull. Gore DID win the majority vote. Bush DID win the majority of electoral college points. Bush ARGUABLY won the majority vote in Florida. "Statistically insignificant" is not applicable. This is an election, and in such a thing if it comes to it one single vote in millions WILL mean the difference between winning and losing. If it's 20 million to 20 million one then the 20 million one wins.
There was no way to resolve the issue without one side feeling cheated.
There would have been no reason to feel cheated had there been no controversy in Florida. If there wasn't then all the rules would have been followed and the winner would have won fair and square. This, however, was not the case. I won't go into details of the issues in Florida here as they aren't really relevant other than to say there was very good reason for both sides to raise hell.
Either way, in the event of a true tie there are proper ways to handle the tie breaker, and the supreme court is not it.
I believe you are also missing the point of this organization monitoring the presedential election.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm having a very hard time finding this to be a deterrent.
Re:CNN has more (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? "Most stable?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sadly, this is necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
Your hyperbole is misplaced and oddly uninformed. Though many people are severely unhappy with the Patriot Act and the signing of Campaign Finance Reform, most are quite capable of distinguishing erosion of rights with the installation of some sort of Orwellian dictatorship.
Perhaps you would be willing to expound upon bill C.215 in Canada which literally turns thoughts and words into federal crimes. Or perhaps the phenomenon in Finland where it is completely legitimate for political parties to be outright banned from elections by the government because they are deemed too extreme. Or maybe a short essay on the United Nations where nations that actively practice slavery and advocate extermination of certain ethnic groups are part of the Security Council. Or perhaps a well-considered exposition on how Nelson Mandela, liberal-champion-extraordinaire openly supports the genocidal outlook of Robert Mugabe.
I gather you will not do any of these things. They are, of course contrary to the liberal outlook of the world, where only the US and the 'whites' who control it are truly evil. It is far easier to buy into the myth that the US is some horrible power hungry machine intent on controlling the world, despite the obvious and overwhelming evidence that should it decide to do just that, it could do so effectively unopposed.
Signed,
The American People not quite as susceptible to sensationalist views.
Thanks Flordia Democrats. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
Fact is there are irregularities in every election everywhere, favoring both (or all) sides about equally that roughly cancel each other out.
I know people involved in american politics that say that the democratic wards will have errors favoring the dems and vice versa.
The most important thing is that the country survived the 2000 election, that we are still playing by the rules and are TRYING to learn from our mistakes.
Remember democracy is a PROCESS.
We know who has to deal with it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Al Gore had ever tried to propose an amendment implementing election reform in his time in the US Senate, then maybe I would feel sorry for him. Same goes for Senator Kerry if a similar unfortunate fate befalls him. The Democrats seems to be happy with the system, even willing to lose a few elections to it, in order to keep the status quo of two parties. I was really hoping the Dems would push for election reform after 2000, but alas no, they instead focus their energies on swing states and fighting Nader in court and in the press.
Re:2000 election (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you honestly believe that what went on in Florida was the only scandal in the election? No, there were scandals all over the country. People buying votes, people results called early, "Nader-trader" sites, etc. Counting votes is not an exact science. Thus, one half of a percent, or 500,000 votes, is statistically insignificant.
"If we had a direct popular vote, or if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today."
So? If our elections were decided by the candidates by a battle to the death Arnold Schwarzenegger would be president. Whats your point?
2000 was no anomoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Article w/ screenshots of the DB here. [gregpalast.com]
Electorial fraud has a colorful history in the US and its not limited to just Florida. How about Illinois during JFK/Nixon? Blacks in the south in the 60's? How about the recent scandels around Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Milwaukee ? Funny how all those cities are in swing-states, generally.
The US needs observers more than ever, especially with electronic voting. I do believe there is a federal law which disallows this. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2000 election (Score:3, Insightful)
Then it would be impossible to get political change in the US. We have an electoral vote for many reasons, but one of them is that it makes the elections close. Neither Bush nor Kerry would pay any attention to my state if we had a popular vote. There's simply not enough population here.
The purpose of an electoral vote is to make every vote count. A potential leader cannot simply attract the majority, they must attract all of the different opinions accross the entire country. The idea is that the president should have to compromise to represent *all* the people, instead of simply representing the majority.
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Having enough ballots would be neat thing to try though...
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't actually say that. If the election was based on popular vote, instead of the Electoral College, then both candidates would have run their campaigns differently -- passing over states they otherwise would have visited, and concentrating on large population centers. Nevermind the fact that more people in non-swing states would have voted. (Why vote in Texas/Massachusetts if you know Bush/Kerry is going to win anyway?)
Oh, and good job on the name-calling. Very mature.
Re:US votes? (Score:1, Insightful)
Dude, seriously, the election is over. Your guy lost. Get over it. Even we conservatives eventually stopped crying about how Perot cost us the 1992 election.
Given the rules that were in place on election day 2000, Al Gore lost. It's as simple as that. Now, you want to look back and say "Well, if the rules had been different, we would have won!" Maybe, but they weren't different.
Moreover, not every absentee ballot was counted. They didn't need to be. In California alone, Gore won by such a margin that even if every absentee ballot was cast for Bush it wouldn't have changed the result of that state's election. But, it is possible that the uncounted absentee ballots would have been enough to cause a swing in the popular vote. We'll never know.
Unfortunately I live in a conservative state, where my voice won't be heard.
I'm from Pittsburgh. It's an odd place. TONS of hunters and religious conservatives, but lots of union democrats. It shapes up that all of the county offices are held by Democrats, the govornor is a Democrat, but our Senators are Republicans.
In 2000, my state went to Gore. Know what? My vote didn't matter either. My uncounted vote for Bush cancels out your uncounted vote for Gore.
LK
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Your own government is concered about what happened in Florida, particularly about the deregistration of large classes of people. I believe the "Help America Vote" is intended to address that. And when your own government is concerned why is it a suprise that the OSCE is too? After all, the US is a participating state [osce.org].
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
It is clear that the election process in Florida in 2000 was substandard to say the least. If it has been fixed objective outside observers can best point this out. If it hasn't, ditto.
Jeb Bush and the Republican Florida Secretary of State cannot perform this service.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT humiliating. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is far from being a humiliation. The OSCE was asked by Secretary of State Colin Powell to monitor the upcoming election.
Furthermore, this isn't the first time they have monitored an election in the U.S. They monitored both the 2002 midterm elections and the California gubernatorial recall election.
So, uh, quit your bitchin'.
Re:mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
Push Polling
Intimidation
Harrassment
Purging the rolls of minorities
These are the reasons that our elections are being monitored. This is not about hanging chads.
However, these problems are a result of people making poor decisions in one state. The other states had no problems and the voting was done fairly and properly. Trying to show the similarities of problems in America and Iraq when it was run by Saddam is irresponsible. That was a country where people's voted did not count. In our country, people after the fact sat down and counted each vote by hand. If it was clear who the person voted for, that candidate got the vote. If it was unclear who they voted for, then the ballot had to be discounted. This is fair! If you can't determine who someone voted for, then they don't get the vote.
Not in the slightest did anything like that happen. First of all, other states have experienced problems with voting. Michigan [thenation.com] is already having problems. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in a democracy.
Again, this is a slap in the face of America to make it look like we have a dictator in office like Iraq had and many other countries still have. That is not the case at all. If you think it is and you hate Bush, then Clinton would have had the same "dictatorship" because he got in office under the same rules. I don't think anyone would consider Clinton a dictator. And I don't think Bush is capable of rising to such a high power. I don't think he's smart enough to do it.
Clinton's clear vicotry and Bush's selection by the Supreme Court are not exactly "under the same rules". There was never any question about Clinton's victory. The process worked the way it was supposed to. Bush's selection was not ordinary and was not played by the same rules at all.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
World's Most Stable Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
We are not a democracy. We are a very democratic republic. This is a very important point that many people misunderstand.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean "help the most people possible?" It's an election, not allocation of funding.
One needs to understand that the United States is not (at least by design, anyway) a monolithic entity, but actually a confederation of 50 sovereign nations.
When this federation was being set up, the states with the least population--and remember, these are sovereign nations--felt that a system that aportioned power based on population would see their states reduced to unimportance, with no say in interstate or foreign issues. The more populous states felt, in turn, that a system that aportioned power as a fixed percentage (i.e. "one state, one vote" as it were) left THEM, with their larger populations, with less power than they should rightfully have.
The result was the bicameral system we have today, where the legislature is divided into two houses--one with a fixed amount of votes per state, and the other with delegates aportioned by population, with each state having at least one delegate.
The electoral college is a combination of both of these ideas: each state receives a number of electors equal to their number of delegates in the house of representatives, plus the number of delegates in the senate. This ensures that pure population doesn't elect the president and create a situation where a state has no national voice.
It is in no way a perfect system, but it is a fairly good one given the issues that needed to be dealt with.
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, since what goes on in the U.S. has a significant impact on what goes on in the rest of the world, the fairness of U.S. elections is an international matter of concern. The U.S. citizenry should only not see this as a humiliation, as they are the one who will benefit from any corrected irregularities. The only people who should be humiliated are those found responsible of those irregularities.
Re:Huh? "Most stable?" (Score:2, Insightful)
In Europe, we have dropped the nationalism, because we already know that the third world has been ruined by America AND Europe. That makes me rather be ashame, than happy to live in such a good country.
We don't have democracies, we have lobby dictatorship for at least 20 years now.
regars
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:America (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm picturing a spirited bout of "I don't have to deal with you, you're not even the real president" between the US and France next time someone wants to start a war.
What planet are you on? (Score:1, Insightful)
Informative my ass. Many people were turned away from the polls. Many people were removed from voter lists because they were likely to vote democratic.
What I find funny is that even after these tactics, it was a close election with Bush nearly not winning. Bush stole the white house.
The state of US Elections is pretty bad. It stands to get worse with electronic voting.
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Civil war ended in 1865. Canada was confederated in 1867, only two years later, and has been a completely stable democracy since this time. Many of the individual provinces were democracies prior to confederation, long before the US Civil War.
Many Americans like to think they have some sort of corner on democracy -- but they don't. The US isn't the biggest democracy (that would be India), they weren't the first democracy (the Athenians had a democracy in 6 BC), and with some of the shanannigans we've seen in previous elections, most people outside the US hadly view the US's democracy as all that "great" (don't forget that all the way into the 1960's, many southern states were still making African-Americans jump through near-impossible hoops to vote, evicted them from their land for trying, burned down places which held voting classes for African-Americans, and even murdered some black applicants).
Virtually every democracy has its dark spots -- but I (and most the rest of the democratized world) never hold up the US as being a paragon of democracy.
About the only people who consider the US to be "the worlds most stable democracy" are Americans. Most of the rest of the world would disagree with that statement. It's always a bit sad to see when some American claims this as some sort of proven fact, as it just serves to mask all the areas where the US needs to improve, and as the most economically powerful democracy, could show real leadership for the rest of the world.
Yaz.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
Gore was just the first to challenge it. I hate Gore, Bush and Kerry equally... so it doesn't really matter who wins (won) I suppose. Even with Gore in office, there is little guarantee that we wouldn't be in some international mess of some kind. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably a fool.
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Insightful)
So we have the electorial college and senate, which part is redundant?
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a pattern of voter fraud allegations on both sides. This, it seems, is reason enough to have impartial observers around.
I'm also curious to hear why you consider Colin Powell a democrat? After all, the Secretary of State invited the observers jointly with members of Congress. Then again, you do try to make a comparison between five states on one side (totalling 83 electoral votes), and one state (10 votes) plus two counties...
Re:You've obviously never heard of "Manifest Desti (Score:3, Insightful)
US-centred /. gets silly now (Score:3, Insightful)
Known by whom, exactly?
More stable than where, exactly? The UK ? Switzerland? Canada?
That sentence makes no sense, it's utter gibberish.
My rewrite:
'To Americans, the United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy'
Now, it makes sense.
Re:Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Canadian forein policy in the 1800s was centred around fear of invasion by the US. A driving force behind Canadian independence from england was to make it politicaly harder for the US to invade. A fair number of people viewed leaving the british empire as a protective sacrifice.
The US was historicly a violently expansionist state.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
We learn from our mistakes, don't we? You're basically arguing that the system is broken and can't be fixed. This is either being pessimistic, barring the possibility of progress in the electoral process, or the result of partisan politics (i.e. you realize that your side profits from voter fraud and thus reject any monitoring that would seek to reduce it).
Like in every other country, they'll report that the "election was rigged" and if anything, stir up even more shit than if they hadn't "monitored" it.
In every other country, really? Actually, could it be because of the simple fact that when there are few irregularities, it doesn't make for good news and therefore it's not as widely reported by the media.
Every year, I hear about something like this, in shitty 3rd world countries whose names I intentionally forget.
Using one's ignorance as an argument. I rest my case.
Do you think that this time, Dubya will just say "well golly gee, you got me... kerry did win after all'?
Should there be any major irregularities that would've tipped the vote over to Kerry, he wouldn't have much of a choice.
Re:US votes? (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither did Clinton.
LK
Gore likely would've (Score:4, Insightful)
There were a wide variety of anti-terrorism and anti-Al Quaeda initiatives started under Clinton that Bush put on the back burner.
I guess we'll never know.
Really though, it's difficult to *seriously* envision any scenario where Gore screws up more than Bush has.
Europe is not 3rd world (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and here I thought they where coming from EUROPE. You know, that area west of asia that's been industrialised longer than the US?
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an outright lie -- ballots where hand counted multiple times.
Part of the problem was that a political party was trying to game the system (e.g. trying to invalidate military votes) and scare people (e.g. by claiming police harrasment because an empty police car was parked at a voting site - maybe a policeman voting?) to generate higher turnout in future elections.
A bigger part of the problem is ignorance. The elections of 1996 and 2000 used the same rules and Bush was not "selected".
States are responsible for turning in vote counts. Democrats sued to keep Florida from turning in votes by the deadline because they wanted more recounts.
The part of this that was "not ordinary" was a group deciding not to follow the laws.
The problem wasn't that there were different rules; it was that some people didn't want those rules applied in 2000.
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the main reasons Mr. Powell made the request is to show public faith in the OSCE. Primarily because DoS wants the OSCE to become more involved in fledgling democracies such as Iraq.
If the U.S. doesn't trust the OSCE enough to provide tertiary monitoring for our own elections, how can we expect anyone to accept OSCE monitoring at our recommendation?
As an American citizen, I truly hope that the OSCE is able to make recommendations to the FEC in order to reduce voter fraud. Such will serve all citizens of this country well.
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, as a member of the organization in question, one should expect that we also submit to its scrutiny. It makes certain that we are fit to be election watchdogs for the rest of the world as well.
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Masquerade of Lies, Bias, Advocacy Journalism (Score:3, Insightful)
All that is typical from Slashdot and BBC. One organization practices advocacy yellow journalism while claiming over and over that it doesn't engage in journalism, while the other has sullied a decades-long record of professional journalism with bias and incompetence.
Of course, neither the poster, not Slashdot or the BBC, mention that the monitors are here because we invited them. They are both quite ready to omit facts that don't suit their agenda.
Re:The problem isn't the electoral colleges (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd note that it's worked for us for longer than the other democracies around the world have BEEN democracies. Different things work in different situations--without the system we have now, there wouldn't BE a United States because either the larger or smaller states wouldn't have gone for it.
Personally, I find the democratic systems around the world where elections don't happen on a regular schedule, but only have to be once every n years with the party in power getting to schedule them to be insanity, myself--but I'd never dream of telling those people they were doing it wrong.
The only thing that that puzzles us more is why some states have different rules.
My post above should have explained that well enough, I think: because each state is sovereign, they get to set their own rules as far as things like elections go. It's like asking why two different member states of the EU have different elections processes.
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:1, Insightful)
How many types of attacks were supposed to happen?
We've had bombs at the WTC, terrorists were supposed to poison the water supply, spread mad cow disease or smallpox, crash a small plane packed with explosives into a nuclear reactor, blow up a boat next to a nuclear sub, attempt targeted assasinations, suicide bombers, poison gas in subways ala Japan, hijack planes to bargain for prisoners, fly small planes into large ones, shoot down planes with shoulder-fired rockets, posion stadiums with crop dusters,
There's probably been a memo on every one of these. Stop being retarded. When there are too many dots to connect, it becomes statistical noise.
Most security personnel at the time thought hijackings would be for negotiations like they had been in the past, or that small planes packed with explosives would be crashed into something smaller.
So which dots exactly do you think were missed?M aybe we should have increased the state's spying powers? Maybe we should have spent more money on the CIA? I doubt those were high on most peoples' lists here before 9/11. Hell, I doubt they are now.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
God does speak to all his children but I am pretty sure he did not tell Bush to invade Iraq. The God I talked about loved all his children not just the white ones. You speak of Christ yet I don't see his teachings in our president's actions.
I thought religious wars were behind us, unfortunately a fundamentalist war has been brewing for awhile now and I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg.
We know enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete b.s. Most informed forners undertand how your system works perfectly - and not very well is one description that comes to mind. And you are not going to tell me you weren't 'surprised' when the US was without a president for a month as the parties brawled it out in the Floridan and Supreme Courts, while acrimonious recriminations reverbrated from coast to coast in the most politically divisive atmosphere since the 1960s.
The 2000 election was a shambolic, third world-style embarassment, and an insult to the shared traditions of democracy that we in the developed world like to call our heritage. It highlighted the many glaring flaws in the US system, including (but not limited to):
- hundreds of millions of dollars being required to win the election
- states controlling the voting process
- politically appointed election officials(! WTF? This would never happen in a million years where I come from, it's completely outrageous).
- politically appointed judges deciding about the fate of the person who potentially appoints their successors (!!!!)
- widespread allegations of vote rigging through intimidation and 'blacklisting' of eligible voters (would be enough to require a reelection in many countries)
I look forwards to Episode II: The End of Democracy.
Re:US votes? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see other countries asking for our approval when they do things. Why is it that we have to seek their approval just to feel like one of the crowd? The world sees us as a dominating force because we are so successful and they hate, fear and are jealous of it at the same time. What about the corruption that was discovered in the oil for food program? I doubt very much that the individuals involved in that are going to answer for it. It's a big slap in the face.
pardon? (Score:1, Insightful)
Since when? 1965 with the Voting Rights Act so blacks could vote in the South? The US barely meets the internationally recognized minimum of two generations.
The US is the richest and most powerful democracy, and it is deeply respected for many absolutely valid and heroic reasons, but it is not the world's most stable democracy. Several countries have done better there.
Where the heck did you go to school? Fox news? That's just incredibly ignorant.
68 election THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING (Score:4, Insightful)
Nowadays, elections are almost boring. What do we have, let's peek:
skull and bones yale elitist, millionaire globalist
skull and bones yale elitist, millioniare globalist
a few other guys who never even get in the newspapers, except for very occasionaly, and all they get asked is why they are making people "waste" their vote, don't they know they will hurt the skull and bones millionaires chances, letting the skull and bones candidate win? How dare they even try!
a war that is popular in some quarters, very unpopular in others (finally,a match)
No comparison, 2004 fails it! The globalist goons got controlling the herds down to a science, even the protests lead to nothing! The news media don't even jump on juicy stuff anymore, they IGNORE it in favor of planned controlled distractions, such as minutiae like forged nat guard documents when the entire 9-11 commission report got enough holes for a dozen golf courses. And something as simple and basic as "we have a ballot box, you can verify the count with your eyes,anyone who can count, or "trust" some anonymous corporate structure and their dubious track record and alleged honest programming....." Hmm..lemme think....why ain't there riots over this abomination again?
The vote is a scam, the election is already over, it's predetermined, the NWO globalist profits at any cost including blood party wins again! Huu-rah for
BTW, you getting a -1 troll mod is wrong, you spoke the truth. It may be unpopular, but you are correct, there would have been very little difference in 2000. I twas a dog and pony show to keep the herds riled up and rooting for one of the two heads of the same demon..
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the NAACP vs Katherine Harris settlement (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if they could review the gerrymandering which has resulted in democrats needing 57% of the vote in order to control the house of representatives then we'll be one step closer to a democratic republic.
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
If you do not count all votes and if a court arbitrarily decides who to put into power you are setting a very bad example especially if the guy whom the victory was awarded to didn't even get the popular vote.
If this was to happen in a 3rd world country monitored by the OECD this result would have been regarded as laughable.
Re:This is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we hadn't invented them yet, so we used biological. We did use chemical in WWI (there is a reason everyone decided to ban them...)
We are also the only country to use nuclear weapons and we used them against civilian targets.
We still have huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (though we are waiting to destroy most) and we also have active biological weapons programs.
I trust the US much much much more than NK with nukes, but I still don't trust us. (oddly enough, Iran getting them doesn't scare me that much (compared to say israel and prementioned NK) as they don't really start wars. they just get attacked and sometimes jump in pre-existing wars)
Re:US votes? (Score:2, Insightful)
In almost every booth I worked in informal votes were extremely rare. In the order of 5-10 per 1000 votes counted. It takes a lot to make a vote informal, and voter education is very high and the Australian Electoral Commission spends a lot of money on ads to keep it that way. Voting is very simple, and outside each booth every political party hands out flyers with a listing of their preference order for people to use. Those that don't care for anything except their marginal candidate just copy the numbers down, drop the vote in the ballot box and walk out. Apart from the queuing to get your name marked off, less than a minute can be spent in the entire process.
The beneficial aspect of the aussie voting system is that because everyone must vote, everyone actually cares about and pays attention to the politics. It's a case of "well if I have to, I'm going to make sure I make a difference". There's lots of viable candidates from all political parts of the spectrum, and all of them have a pretty decent chance of getting voted in. For example, a party that was selling highly racist policies manages to get a collection of senate seats and a couple of lower house seats. Same thing with the heavy greenies, who happen to hold the balance of power in the senate. It works far better than the system here in the USA from my observation.
What's with the attitude?! (Score:2, Insightful)
As a European let me say this: your election in Florida was the best Disney show I ever saw. I do not know of any other country in the Western world where the Governor helps his brother become President who then abuses his newly acquired power to start all sorts of wars, helps his rich buddies get richer and sends the economy spiraling down.
It will not take long before China & Europe stop financing your ridiculous deficit and demand cold cash. That's when the US will collapse and sadly be probably an even better reality show than Jeb & George do Florida. This threat should concern you much more than the OCSE coming over. Think about what is happening with the economy of your country, the serious danger the US deficit poses and how you can make a difference with your vote.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, the Republican Party controls, or has a majority, in all three branches of government.
Are they concerned about the intgerity of the democratic process itself, or merely on maintaing the appearance of a "model" democracy?
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason I said we should get rid of that system is because television and the Internet allow candidates' voice to be spread effectively. I live in New Jersey, the most densely populated state, but I've never seen GWB or Kerry come here and campaign. But I don't feel unrepresented, but I do feel it's unfair that my vote counts less than someone's in Nevada or Montana.
Another thing I see fault with the electoral college is that it tells voters to not bother voting if their candidate isn't popular in their state. If I am a republican and I cast my vote in a heavily democratic state, then it doesn't mean anything because the state will go democratic. So people don't bother voting because their vote essentially won't count. I think that is something that hurts voter turnout.
I feel the candidate who gets the most votes should win. In this time, everyone is connected or at least targeted through the Internet and television so I don't feel that their needs are underrepresented.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
This stuff blows my mind... that there are still people out there who cling to the notion that Bush was "selected" and not elected. As for "not played by the same rules at all"... please cite your reference as to exactly which rule was not followed. Start with the Constitution and work down. Good luck.
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm...Mods? How in any way is this interesting?
Come on Slashdot! You complain about "Faux" News being a bastion of republican influence and then promote slanderous bile like this to a +5 score--sometimes in the same thread!
Say what you will, but if there were an organized determined segment of people trying to discredit you at every chance, you'd be careful too. It's not an indication of guilt. Were there any inconsistency between their stories--no matter how minor or insignificant--people like you would be calling for impeachment.
Weren't we all? The fact is that a terrorist attack already in progress is almost impossible to stop. I'd bet you believe that John Kerry would be Man-of-Action and get fighter jets up in the air within minutes of the first plane crash--bullshit. Hindsight is 20/20. Something the democrats are going to find out is that having ONLY criticism like the above without proposing better solutions for the future doesn't help anyone.
Oh really? Find me where and when he said that. Or was that just a quote from your imagination? I guess it doesn't matter if your sources are wrong, provided you have an unwavering faith in the validity of the overall story [cbsnews.com], right?
You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the conservative "Bible-Belt," with his personal beliefs. In actuality, GWB--and the Bush family in general--are quite religiously moderate.
Fair enough. Nobody except your conservative counterparts are saying he was the best president ever, and even though I myself will probably vote for him in November, I will have many reservations in doing so.
-Grym
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
They, and for that matter, your own government and many of your citizens, say that there have been problems with elections in the USA. THat does in no way mean 'we' think it is a dictatorship now.
Just in case, there is no point whatsoever in monitoribng elections in a dictatorship, you know the outcome beforehand.
It is very usefull to monitor elections when they have a chance of being relatively fair but also have a chance on some problems.
On another note, I would rather like outside observers at our local elections (I'm from the Netherlands btw, so a European). Eventho we do not have a history of problems with elections, having someone from the outside look over your shoulder is a great help in keeping it that way.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:US votes? (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't exactly commander in chief at the time, you know.
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:1, Insightful)
truth they just resort to moderating
posts as "Flamebait".
what is good for the goose.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the President represent the largest possible number of Americans?
Of course, getting rid of the electoral college is only the teeniest step. We really need new ways of scoring elections [electionmethods.org].
World's most stable democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
What planet are you living on? The USA may be a fairly stable democracy, but you can't compare the country that has events like the Los Angeles riots, the twin tower terror attacks and regular civil unrest with places like New Zealand or Australia. Democractic the US may be, but stable? Give me a break.
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, given that each state is set up on similar lines as the overall nation, you could say that we're a republic of republics.
how is tha that the united states of america has the illusion of being a beacon of democracy?
What illusion? In general, we hold democratic ideals sacred--sure we do things a little bit differently than everybody else, but our constitution has worked for us for two hundred and fifteen years. It was (rightly) regarded at the dawn of the 19th century to be wonderful and marvelous, a great experiment in freedom. People came here in their millions from old European nations that didn't want them, and they discovered how and why America was great. Slowly, but surely, the rest of the world caught up.
Things certainly have changed over the last fifty years--and recent events are indeed troubling--but if the above isn't the very definition of "beacon of democracy" I don't know what is.
Re:US votes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, besides the disproportionate number of representatives, there are two other major problems with the electoral college. The all-or-nothing voting block that gets cast for whoever has the plurality of the state. To be more fair the representative votes should be proportional to the number of votes. That will really help improve chances of 3rd parties getting elected.
Secondly, the whole concept of the electoral representatives is pretty stupid. Namely, the president is chosen by the selected representatives, who are only SUPPOSED to vote with their state, they're not mandated to. These selected people have effectively the voting power of a million times the normal person, hardly a fair system.
If those two problems are fixed, then it would make things much better. The electoral vote would more closely match the popular vote, and the small states would still have their legislative power.
Re:New Zealand (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not? I guess that means our historical views of democracy are all wrong because they weren't colored by contemporary feminism.
Re:US votes? (Score:1, Insightful)
A war fought for choice not necessity is evil. There wasn't any credible WMD evidence and 1000+ of our boys have died for it.
Re:America (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: International observers for US elections
Fuck off.
Making America look more like a hellish pit of arrogance and ignorance, one forum post at a time. eh?
electronic voting from home (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
Re:This is a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure where you are getting your facts from but...
Before we were officially the glorious US of A, the person in charge of military forces for British-controlled America, Jeffrey Amherst, did indeed use smallpox-infested blankets to decimate Native American tribal populations [viewzone.com] in what is now the Northeastern U.S.
In addition to biochemical warfare, we have been pretty effective at plain old murderous genocide [tripod.com] when it came to the folks who inhabited these lands before us.
Ain't America grand?!?
Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine the outcry if Republican strongholds were allowed to keep voting after the Democrat-leaning areas were closed and counted? Yet the reverse is exactly what happened in 2000. Frankly, I'm glad that there will be outside observers monitoring the Missouri elections, because that state can't manage to keep them straight on its own.
Of note, although Bush still won Missouri, that's the election where John Ashcroft lost to the deceased Mel Carnahan by 49% to 51%. It's widely speculated (and believed) that he would have won by a clear margin had St. Louis polls been closed at the same time as the rest of the state. Ironically, had he won, he'd probably still be a senator instead of Attorney General. Guess that one kind of backfired, huh?
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll give you the primary Democratic responsibility for the build-up in Vietnam. Ike knew better than to send too many men in there, but only a force that would theoretically be able to encourage stability. Once Kennedy and Johnson got their hands on it, though, things did really begin to go to Hell.
The Republicans don't overestimate their voters' intelligence either. They know that appeals to racism and religous fundamentalism work to garner support among the poor and undereducated.
The election system is broken. When people with a potential vested interest in the outcome of an election are charged with administering said election, things have gone wrong. Kathrine Harris should not have been allowed to participate in the Bush campaign due to her responsibilities as Secretary of State in Florida. Jeb Bush only did what was expected of him (though I still don't really like him), and I have a slightly harder time with laying much blame at his feet. He was in a sticky situation from the beginning, and if I had been in the same place as he was, I would probably have done the same things he did at the time.
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the Electoral college, the rural states would be at the mercy of the populated states. New York and California could effectively dictate to the rest of the nation.
What's good for California is not nessecarily good for South Dakota.
It's not perfect, but it does the job.
The 'one voter, one vote' theory only works when all the states have like populations.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:European Democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly European countries to be upset that such a freak gets so many votes in Austria.
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
And why, do you think that a congress made solely of democrats and republicans will make it any easier for a non-democrat, non-republican to have a fair chance at winning office?
Or do you think that we don't need some serious 3rd/4th/5th party representation to fix things?
I was looking for a comment to moderate... (Score:4, Insightful)
The facts are simple, The US has the longest continuous democratic government in the world. So the comment stable government is accurate in that sense.
However, since it is old, and politicians have been writing the laws for so long to their own advantage, it is a very complicated process in which the laws of each state, can have an impact in how a president of the country is elected. Granted the parlimentary system can get very complicated, and back room deals are critical for a majority to be reached, just ask Italy about that.
No democracy is perfect, and it is safe to say that there has never been a national election in which cheating, mistakes, and outright stupidty on someones part did not cause inaccuracy in the numbers.
Now the European monitors will have no actual authority to do anything. US law, and courts will control all aspects, as it should be. They will see a very boring election in the respect that it will be a bunch of normal people going to the polls on the first Tuesday of November. There will not be gangs outside beating people who do not vote the way they want. No one will feel like they were pressured into voting a certain way, it will be a stable election.
Now if it close again, then the lawyers will get involved, and then the bloodbath will begin. So let them watch. Nothing they could say will match the level of hysteria that media will propagate over every little bit (literally) of ridiculous trash they can find, and in the end, there will still be a peaceful transition of power if Kerry wins, and a peaceful continuation if Bush wins. That is what it is all about.
It's been 144 years since the US failed to have a peaceful transistion based on an election. I think it will be ok.
Democracy and feminism (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
Re:Two ways this can go (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
What the grandparent is trying to get across is the idea that when the US has an internal crisis over its own electoral process and then awards the office to the guy who got fewer votes it looks, to the rest of the world, as something of a quandary.
The US electoral system is weird, hands down, and among democracies (republics if you prefer) it is considered somewhat antiquated and strange. We're talking about a system that fundamentally distrusts the masses, leaving the decision to the politically elite (this was the framers intent with the college) which has been beaten into a vague semblance of a plebiscite, though with questionable success.
The United States was entering a legitimacy crisis in 2000 and 2001, a period that all democratic governments enter with some regularity. The last one we endured was Vietnam. The 2001 crisis was cut short by the attacks on September 11. Without those attacks the US political landscape would be a radically different place today. Even so, the same elements continue to smolder as the Bush administration burrows deeper and deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq.
At its core, the nation is polarizing. Sides are being drawn up and, as Jefferson might say, the Tree of Liberty is being refreshed, even as we speak. In the 1960s and 1970s it was the remains of the 1950s military establishment against the anti-war movement. Today we're seeing a similar backlash against corporate government.
This is an interesting time we live in, and one that is not well served by the oversimplifications you offer. What happens in these next few months will change the face of American democracy forever.
A Chinese proverb says "may you live in interesting times." Of course, it is worth noting that this is a curse.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
You're mixing things up. The whole issue is about the voting process, not the entire political system. I agree with you that a two-party system sucks, but the point here is to make sure that, at the very least, peoples' votes are tallied correctly and that voting access is adequate.
Or do you think that we don't need some serious 3rd/4th/5th party representation to fix things?
As long as there are always an even number of parties, and that they are equally divided on the right/left axis - otherwise, a new party only undermines its closer relatives while helping its most antagonistic opponents. Look at Nader, there's a good reason why Republicans are financially supporting many of his efforts to get on states' ballots. Now, if both Perot and Nader were running...
We don't seem to disagree that much, really - I just think that it's possible to improve the voting process, and that making abuses and irregularities public is the first step into reducing their impact on the overall election.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
so why did the state department invite them to monitor the election?
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
Government of the ______.
By the ______.
For the ______.
Hint: The correct answer is not "States".
Decades Too Late (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why no compulsory vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedoms only exist because they are granted to us. We once had the freedom to own and keep slaves. That freedom has been taken away.
We accept state-imposed freedom-limitation in many way as we recognise the benefit for a larger group (society) than the individual (the inherent state-citizen contract again).
Do you mean to say that voting is "..the promotion of nationalist sentiment."?
Voting, in my view, is the ultimate freedom - the right to choose one's own leaders. Compulsory voting is to ensure that better than 52% of the population exercises that most important of rights (or at least take a moment to think about it).
Re:America (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not, of course - that report was a foregone conclusion, prepared by a partisan commission, operation in furtherance of a partisan political agenda. And that's a fact.
Re:I was looking for a comment to moderate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a good thing. It will be a deterrant against those who wish to repeat and/or expand on some of the dirty tricks from the last election.
"Irregularites," are not normal or acceptable when they involve someone trying to prevent a legal voter or having his/her vote counted.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
just like open source... (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time (Score:5, Insightful)
If I rememeber correctly, it's suspected that someone whose job was to remove ineligible voters from the lists removed everyone with the same or similar name or alias to the person to be removed. Accounting for last names like Johnson, Smith, Thompson, and other particularly common ones that's a lot of people.
If something like that happens again with any kind of real quantity of the electorate I'll be in favor of extending voting rights to anyone who is a citizen who registers, with convicted felons serving their terms simply unable to physically get to the polls to cast their ballot as the disenfranchising part of their loss of rights. Yes, this would allow parolled and probationed ex-cons to vote, but if they're physically among the populace then we're not exactly doing much more than requiring them to pop in and say, "hello" from time to time. They may as well be included if it prevents this level of crap again.
Vote rigging (Score:1, Insightful)
is it possible for fake votes?
If yes,then no harm in monitoring.
If it feels its a insult if europeans monitor,then america is insulting them.
Re:"It failed us four years ago" (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't. And don't just remember it, learn from it too. You know, to make less mistakes in the future.
Okay, this discussion is heading for a prolonged pointless quarrel, and I couldn't ever be arsed. Fortunately those (North) Americans I have the pleasure of knowing are quite different from you. Great folks, and ones I have reason to admire. The things they have enabled me to really learn about USA have given me reason to admire the country, too. You know, always pros and cons, things to fix, where-ever you are in the world...
[By the way, Kerry is popular in Europe not directly because of his views on the world, but his affable manner. You just gotta love the big guy who doesn't show any ego problem. Compare this to slashdotters' attitude toward the IBM of the past (an evil empire of management and lawyers) and the IBM of the present (still strictly business but champions of open source): there is something of a similarity.]
Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time (Score:4, Insightful)
oh, i bet the republicans would be really against that.
Re:US votes? (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to avoid this rhetorical chestnut in the future, unless you honestly believe that everyone on Slashdot believes the exact same things. You'd have to be clinically retarded to do so...
Is that your diagnosis, doc? Seriously, all I was doing was pointing out the fact that the collective group of people, from here on known as "Slashdot," are mind-bogglingly liberal at times. Try and defend Fox News some time. You won't get a point. But spew anti-Bush rhetoric (regardless of whether its true or even logical), and you'll get modded to the top. It's the new brand of karma whoring.
This election is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils, and you have to be experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance to honestly think that voting for Bush is a good idea.
Another diagnosis, huh? So I guess that means that +45% of the country right now is experiencing severe psychological distress? Perhaps we should have everybody who doesn't vote the way we want committed, eh?
There is such a thing as legitimate disagreement. You and the rest of the far left need to wake up and realize that Bush isn't evil and that John Kerry isn't the panacea to all our nations problems. That kind of talk only alienates moderate, Independent voters like myself. As far as I'm concerned, you're right: it is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils. And, if the election were tomorrow, I'd be casting my vote against the far left which currently embraces nothing less than hatred and outright lies against a sitting president during a time of war.
-Grym
rights of convicted persons (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexual predator and sex offender registries complicate matters, as this is another condition upon the individual that lasts past any prison term, parole, or probationary period. I don't quite know how I feel about it, though I wonder if they would be better served to simply redefine the punishments for the crimes to include permanent probation or parole instead of the current registry terms, for right now it gives the impression of continuing to punish the convicted person after after we've otherwise indicated that their punishment is officially considered concluded. They are people, after all, so maybe in addition to the punitive part of their sentence they should be required to undergo psychological help or some kind rehabilitation to help deal with the problems, rather than leaving them to their own devices. It seems to be a broken system right now.
knoppix wouldn't solve any real problems (Score:3, Insightful)
But technical security of the voting system is hardly the only problem. You're also opening the door for people to complain that the voting didn't work for them at some point after the election. (eg. Connection was cut, display showed incorrect colours, keyboard was mapped badly, or whatever.) With no authorised officials present at voting to monitor the process, equipment, and help anyone who's having problems, there's no reliable way to guarantee that each person is equally capable of voting.
Another problem that's at least as big in a serious election is that there's no way to audit that every vote was cast anonymously and without coersion by third parties. eg. Pointing a gun at someone to name an extreme example, as is threatening someone of repurcussions if they don't return from the voting procedure with the "correct receipt".
Voting in national elections is one of the few places where I personally think that computer-technical solutions should be avoided unless they're really needed. As well as the problems above, 99% of the population simply aren't qualified to understand a counting process when it's done by a computer, and are forced to trust a small minority.
Compared with the concept of people counting pape votes that were deposited in a box while watched by representatives of all sides, the abstract nature of how digital voting and counting works is very difficult for most people to grasp. At the very least there should always be a simple variant of a paper trail produced at voting time, so the option for a mass-understood recount is always available. If a voting system is to be fair and representative, there have to be reasonable grounds for those using it to be able to trust that their votes are being counted properly to produce the result.
Letting people boot into something like a Knoppix-based system might make sure they're not infected by the Windows virus of the month, but it wouldn't solve any real problems with computer-based elections.
no, that is NOT the assumption (Score:5, Insightful)
so i won't attempt any alternate history. The point is that he did nothing. It seems acceptable by all that Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said to him "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Opinions diverge at this point. Card later had this [whitehouse.gov] take on it:
Criminy! The US was under attack by persons/entities unknown and he did not bolt? The SS Red Team did not spring into action? WTF was going on here? He sat there for seven minutes completely outside communication* while this was unfolding. Appearing resolved for the cameras a few days later doesn't cut it. I can't fathom that he's been compared to Winston Churchill.**
The quote above is from this page [cooperativeresearch.org] which gives an account of Bush's actions that day. Interesting read. Is it factual? That's what we're trying to find out.
I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection
i urge you to see the (entire) video. It's sobering.
* though supposedly, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, wrote "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" and held it up for Bush to see. But that doesn't really count
** But it's funny for two reasons. Here's an interesting article [commondreams.org] about some parallels between events in America during ~1930--45 and those today.
*** the attribution to the herald-trib points to this link [cooperativeresearch.org], which appears to no longer exist.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, you thought you still lived in a country that had a federal system of government, with relatively autonomous states reporting to a central (but relatively weak) government?
What a pretty illusion that must be. I wish it were that way, but States' Rights died in 1862.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Conservatives used to be in favor of small government. Hell, conservatives used to be conservative. Now, they just want a different set of my civil liberties than the liberals.
Any voting system that does not allow me to kick ALL those conniving bastards out is broken.
lots of partisan crap (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to attempt to put an end to it.
Admit, if you will, that there was a controversy regarding our last presidential election, some of it's methods, and it's results.
Therefore, why WOULDN'T an independant body be appropriate to looking into it?
Re:Europe is not 3rd world (Score:3, Insightful)
Is USA the best democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
And IMO that sentence is very wrong. A simple example would be that fellons are not allowed to vote - SOME groups of people are not ALLOWED to vote - I can't understand why that does not make more people upset in the USA. It is horrible and non-democratic. Another example on the USA democratic system is the fact that there are only 2 parties - a direct result, IMO, of the stupid "one winner takes it all"-system (I am thinking of the presidency, not the senate). Also I am very negative towards the highly individual-focused system; You vote for one president, and focus a lot on his personal attributes - which is TOTALLY wrong - one should only look at the party which the candidate represents.
If I would choose the country that has the best democracy, I would choose Switzerland, followed by a row of other European countries such as the scandinavian ones, germany, etc.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody invited us.
What makes them such experts on running fair and honest elections today..
For a start OSCE has to exist somewhere and it just happens to be a European body. Don't like it? Fine, start your own. They've been monitoring elections for decades so I'd say that makes them pretty qualified.
Oh whatever. Look kid, Europe has been doing democracy long before the American colonies were a twinkle in the eye of some foolhardy explorers. We have several centuries of a head start on you. The 2000 elections were bodged and the US State Department has asked someone else to come take a look this time around. So obviously somebody seems to think the US can learn something from the Europeans.
Re:I disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
The electoral college isn't the only solution to this problem, it's just the one we have. We can solve the problem in other ways.
Take as an example a voting method that involves ranking the candidates. So each states uses this voting method to aggregate an entire rank of candidates, and then each state gets to cast a vote based on this rank. You could do away with the electoral college completely and still ensure that states get a say as a group, and the minorities in the group get their say. Under this system, let's say the person in your state that made the 4th rank places second in two other states. Now the chances have gone up that he will get elected, and there are (in three states, at least) a significant amount of people that would accept him as president. Under our current system, he's toast.
As long as you filter the votes at the state level before passing them on, you've solved the problem the electoral college solves. How you do it is another issue as well. The simple fact is, under the electoral college there are a number of states that have marginal influence on the election, because even when added together they still represent less than the required number of electoral votes needed. That's why New Mexico is never a battleground state. It just doesn't matter, they're only three votes. Texas, on the other hand, would be a battleground state (except it usually votes republican).
I like the fact that the electoral college means the president has to lie to most states instead of just lying in CA and NY, but the electoral college isn't the only way to solve thsi problem. IN any case, the Electorate can certainly use better reports than they're getting. I mean, right now they get 40% like Bush, 39% like Kerry, 10% like Nader, etc. How about if they got , instead, 40% like Bush, most of them like Kerry too. 39% like Kerry, but most of them hate Bush. Choosing Kerry would make 86% of your voters happy, whereas choosing Bush would only satisfy 40% of your voters. Under our current system, Bush wins because 40 Voting is all about reporting, and we need to first understand that our current system of voting does not provide enough information to make the best possible decision on how to best represent the people. Then we can work on solving that problem. When it's solved, then we can see if the electoral college itself is broken, or if it works fine when you put the right reports into the hands of the electors.
Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:mistakes (Score:1, Insightful)
To the extent that the Presidential Election is described in the US Constitution, it lies within the purview of the supreme Court [except (possibly) if Congress makes an Exception, which it hasn't].
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, the failure of the founding fathers to recognize the full implications of their rhetoric is not a stain on them. Again and again we apply their framework beyond what they envisioned, and again and again it proves successful. As with Maxwell, this looks very much like confirmation, rather than refutation.
Comparing political systems to physics theory is most certainly a new approach. Your statement proves nothing. It is in fact reducing the discussion to exactly idealism.
Your belief that the founding fathers' words are similar to Maxwell's discoveries imply that the founding fathers somehow has discovered a political theory, or at least some fact of life, that is correct. I strongly disagree with such a belief when it comes to politics.
Your belief is, in my (humble) opinion, dangerous, exactly because it provides such a ideological approach to politics. But who's to say what system the founding fathers would have chosen today? Who cares anyway? They did a terrific job. The american democracy has proven to be effective and prosperous. But so did the Roman democracy in its time. It deteriorated - and I think most Romans believed that they were only "applying the framework beyond what was envisioned" until the bitter end.
Re:mistakes (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm going to call BS on that. Time and time again the vision of the founding fathers has been spun into a version that supports the desires of the people in power. This makes America as an idealogical state all the more dangerous, as people will quote nice soundbites the Constitution, Jefferson, Washington etc. whenever it helps them, but not understand the context and real meanings.
Furthermore they ignore the opinions the founding fathers when they oppose present day Americans' way of life. Jefferson was very much against coporations and their power to undermine the good of the people. Nobody wanted a party based political system (certainly not one with only two major parties!), and they also intended almost all the power should be left to the states with a very weak federal goverment, no longer present in the ideologies of Democrats or Republicans.
It's also a bit of a stretch to believe they'd support America in "humanitarian intervention", read their words on the topic with relation to the British Empire and other European powers who went through that stage in the past.
Many of the cherished features of present day America were feared by the founding fathers, they had hoped they had done enough to prevent those fears becoming reality but it appears they didn't. Perhaps it is an imposible task without the will of the people fully behind the ideals, and that's nearly imposible as those in power will always undermine that. It would be nice to think that Americans could look to the future rather than dwelling on old ideas, but at the moment looking to the past is probably the easiest way to learn, even if most are reluctant to do it.
Re:of course, the rest of the world isn't any bett (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"It failed us four years ago" (Score:3, Insightful)
So US congressmen asked Europeans to observe, and Europeans have decided to do as asked. I do not see how honoring an invitation could be considered an insult by the inviter. Could you please explain ?
Well, those congressmen don't seem to be as confident about that as you, since they asked for observers.
Nice use of adjectives. Have you considered a career in propaganda ?
Won't forget what ? That you asked for Europe's help in ensuring that your elections are conducted fairly, and Europe delivered the aid requested ?
I could understand your statement if Europe had refused...
Re:Bah (Score:3, Insightful)
The invasion of Iraq was based upon blatant lies, international warnings about the chaos which already is there now, and a blatand ignorance of the US government regarding the whole middle east and worldwide solution. The invasion according to Annan still was/is illegal if you go after strict international law.
Re:mistakes (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should states matter more than people ?
Re:mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)
The ideas developed in Europe and was brought along with europeans that emigrated to America, where the theories were put into practical work rather quickly, as it was a new nation without the momentum of a couple of millenia's worth of history and politics to fall back upon. Except for the native americans, but they didn't have much say in these matters.
I can't really say which country was first with implementing true democracy, because then we would have to decide at what point a democracy really is a true democracy. For example, women and people of lower classes were not allowed to vote in many early european democracies, and I am sure we could find groups that weren't in early american democracy too. The first true democracy that most people could agree with would probably be the first nation where every single grown up individual, regardless of gender or race, has the right to take part in the election of the government. Which nation was first with that, I really don't know.
You seem to reject Greece being the cradle of democracy on the the fact that they used slaves. Well, guess what, so did the united states for the first couple of centuries too.
And, btw, democracy is not something that one guy figured out over night and then implemented the next day, it is a concept that has evolved and gone in and out of fashion over millenia, with the Greek system being one of the first that implemented it in any form.
Re:rights of convicted persons (Score:2, Insightful)
That seems to be a seperate symptom of your country's stagnant, possibly moribund political system, rather than a good reason to accept nullifying legitmate votes...
"The number of illegal double voters in Florida and several other states is quite likely to have exceeded the margin of victory in those states in the 2000 presidential election."
In the words of one of my country's previous prime ministers; I refer you to my previous response.
These are other symptoms of a problem, not reasons to perpetuate / exacerbate that problem.
Re:mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my two cents worth
OCSE ? Why not, what's the problem ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite simply it's a bi-polar political party system in which the two parties are against each other in the race to control two fundamental processes ; allocation of government resources and formation and implementation of federal and/or state laws.
Obviously, the presence of such rich prizes is a very strong motivator to win for any party. Nobody (disillusioned enough) is going to believe the fight between the two will be an amicable exchange of punches above the waist line, simply because what is at stake is worth any trick ; the absence of an impartial judge is an even stronger motivator.
The presence of external observators like OCSE and others is a serious problem to those that think that a third party is not going to be merely an annoyance ; it may be a problem for X party that would like to buy observator favor somehow..same applies to Y party. It may be a problem to both X and Y if they both think the observator will really be impartial AND show the deficencies of the whole voting system (not only the electronic vs paper ballot).
I think that during the last presidential elections Americans received a strong wake up call : the political oligarchy which really runs the country (too often in bed with too few strong concentrations of private power) is trying to take away the last bastion of a democratic system, by taking away our right to kick away or severely reduce the power of some party we no longer want. We already are subject to the tirannny of the majority system in which the winner too often forgets he/she is representing ALL the population, not only the supporting party.
The issues of corruption of representatives, gullibility level of the average voter and partisan infiltrations in the legislative system are likely to become totally insignificant if the voter will no longer be able to have a say on what's going on...why care about voters interest if their vote isn't worth poop anyway ?
Re:Worlds most stable democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you have your definitions mixed up. War is the failure of diplomacy. We are suppose to go to war if we can't figure out a diplomatic solution to the problem.
That said, I think 'War for Democracy' is a ridiculous idea, however, I don't see that it is necessarily a contradiction in terms.
Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (Score:4, Insightful)
These weren't the exceptions, these were the rule.
The exceptions would be Germany and Japan, where we actually did install democratic systems.
The vast majority of the time when the US has enacted a regime change, we have deposed the democratically elected leaders and installed brutal dictators who murdered 10s of thousands of their citizens. We did this because the former leaders were looking out for the best interests of their citizens rather than for the best interests of US based companies.
If you have any doubt about this whatsoever, just look up "Banana Republic" and skip any results for the retailer.
Being a patriot does not mean saying " I love America" and "lalala I can't hear you" whenever somebody criticizes it. That is jingoism and it is pretty much the opposite of patriotism. That is what you are doing, that's what Fox news is dedicated to and it is literally destroying freedom in this country as it is the worst form of ignorance possible to a citizen.
Patriotism means honestly looking at what your country is doing and standing up against it *when* (not *if*, every country does fucked up things at times) it does.
If so many people in this country hadn't shirked their duty in this respect, we would not be in the shitty situation we are currently where we have the choice between a treasonous chimp and a clod as president.
Re:2000 was no anomoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, I did hear something about that... let me see if I can find the article...
I know I certainly don't make a habit of requesting voter blacklists to see if I'm still allowed to vote. I just kindof assume that what with my not being a felon and all, that I'm still allowed. Perhaps I'm just naive.
According to many surveys I just made up, they all would have voted for Dukakis. Odd, huh? The reality is that we won't know how they would have voted. And it's irrelevant anyway; any illegal disenfranchisment should be abhorrant to every American.
Given the choice between letting felons vote and denying the vote to legit voters, I'd let the felons vote any day. Good for the districts who chose to do so. (Better yet, good for the vast freaking majority of the country that just lets released felons vote. Blocking the felon vote is a waste of time.)
Re:This is NOT humiliating. (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you.
-- An American.
Elections should be carefully monitored by as many independent groups as possible. The highest levels of vigilance are the only way to maintain a free democracy.