Europeans To Monitor American Voters

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

[dncsky1530]

It's always good to learn from your mistakes, but it's even better to learn from someone elses.

Re:mistakes

[devilspgd]

People can talk about Florida all they want. It was a result of outdated technology and a ballot that was confusing to read. Combine that with an elder population that has a difficult time adjusting to electronic voting and you'll get problems that are difficult to solve in the next election.

Having enough ballots would be neat thing to try though...

Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time

[TWX]

"If I [remember], in Florida and elsewhere, there were a lot of blacks that were turned away from voting and this did not look good to the rest of the world..."

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.

rights of convicted persons

[TWX]

If I understand matters, until the Court considers your debt to society paid your civil rights are partially suspended. If you are on parole you have no reasonable expectation of privacy compared to any given person, and you are held to the highest standards of behavior and rules for what you are and are not allowed to do. In theory the Court should restore your civil rights once you are off parole, out of probation, or released from prison with all time considered served.

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.

Re:mistakes

[nihilogos]

Mellow out a bit. Nobody is comparing the US to a dictatorship, you started that on your own.

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

[MustardSauce]

You're taking this as an insult to America?

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.

Re:mistakes

[RWerp]

Fox says: Responding to a request from 13 Democratic congressmen and the State Department, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (search) will be sending a group to make sure the United States holds a fair election in November.

So this is a self-inflicted slap in the face. It often happens in European democracies, to invite outside observers to elections.

Re:mistakes

[thephotoman]

That is the telling part. We know our election system is broken. It failed us 4 years ago. While the failure was partially due to technology being confusing, we would also like to make sure that nobody's trying to take advantage of that confusion. We cannot be certain whether the state government in Florida had any role in influencing the outcome of the Elector elections in its state. The main reason for this suspicion is the identity of the people who were in charge of that election: a major candidate's brother, who needed only that state's Elector's votes to win the election and said candidate's state campaign manager. Both of these people had a vested interest in making sure that a particular candidate won. Even if things had gone the other way four years ago, and it was Gore up for re-election, we'd be in the same boat. It's the fact that there's even remotely reasonable suspicion that people were trying to influence the election that has people concerned.

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:"It failed us four years ago"

[Anonymous Coward]

But make no mistake. We won't forget this.

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:"It failed us four years ago"

[brokenvoice]

Really.

So what does, "We won't forget this.", mean exactly? Next you'll invade Aberdeen to get access to (what's left) of north sea oil in a bid to liberate the Scots from the yoke of Blair the dictator?

You're a funny man. Go militia boy go!

Re:mistakes

[lee7guy]

History of Democracy [thinkquest.org]

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:mistakes

[Xabraxas]

People can talk about Florida all they want. It was a result of outdated technology and a ballot that was confusing to read. Combine that with an elder population that has a difficult time adjusting to electronic voting and you'll get problems that are difficult to solve in the next election.

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:mistakes

[jonabbey]

Wow, quite the partisan, "one side fits all" view of reality, huh?

There were lots of irregularities in Florida, including an unconstitutional supreme court intercession in an area that the constitution specifically assigns to the states, and including the erroneous disqualification of 50,000 minority voters. Democrats attempting to get certain votes excluded, Republicans attempting to get others excluded, Democrats trying to get elderly Jewish voters for Buchanan reconsidered, Republicans (successfully) trying to get military votes that did not follow the statutory requirements for overseas voting accepted..

But it's simpler in your world, I guess.

Re:mistakes

[pyrrhonist]

I see this as an insult to America. They're basically saying our process of electing a president is a sham and that we're incapable of being democratic.

No, actually the OSCE were asked by Secretary of State Colin Powell to monitor the election. Furthermore, this isn't the first election in the U.S. they have monitored.

Re:mistakes

[Whyte]

No, actually the OSCE were asked by Secretary of State Colin Powell to monitor the election. Furthermore, this isn't the first election in the U.S. they have monitored.

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

[superpulpsicle]

The greatest strength a country can have is publically acknowledging its weakness. For U.S to come out and say "monitor us", that's really something. Though I am still in huge favor of electronic voting from home. But that's a separate story.

Re:electronic voting from home

[Al Dimond]

Because people's home PCs are exactly the kind of secure platforms from which any good democracy should determine its future leaders.

Re:mistakes

[mabhatter654]

in some ways it's a slap in the face, in others i think it would shed some serious light to the auditors on how a "real" democracy works... because I think they may find some small "systematic" issues, but overall we are about the fairest, most democratic country out there...northern europe included.

We DO have systematic problems with our democracy...and having some outside help might get things fixed. After all, the Florida situation is an excellent example of how "steeped" our system is. Let's face it, in most states the elections are run by the "old biddy" crowd, politically active, people that have "all day" to meander out to vote. I know in my state that we have "little" elections all the time for really small things. [city, county, state] It makes it hard for "working class" people to keep up with all the issues...so things like school milages and more local things get a "fixed" election by skirting under the radar and if the media doesn't like the issues they just "forget" to publisize it!!! Keeping that in mind, when you get to a national election every 4th year you go to vote and find all sorts of petty "procedural" changes... so you end up a the wrong polling place [changed after 5 years!] or find your name on some "list" [so you could vote, but not THIS time], or because of historically low turn out they don't print enough ballots [but that IS the fault of populace not voting enough!!!]

Either way, the florida election had many of these situations all at once! Of course the national media did "create" the mess by suddenly putting the "whole" election on florida which caused tons of people that normally wouldn't have voted to turn out...to a system designed to "weed by technacality". The media made it a "hot spot" then put on all the activist lawyers & preacher to point out how unfair the whole thing was. The "impropeiety" occurred mostly because very few of the "officals" knew the proper rules to follow, so they started "making them up" under the glut of voters and outside pressure. Combine with crappy voter ballots [again a small "systematic" jab at "stupid" people] it only made things worse.

On top of everything else, NOBODY FOLLWED THE RULES of the election process... not the Florida counties, the state election office, or even the lawyers who argued in the supreme court!!! The electoral college was created for just such purpose!

The Electoral College was created by the constitution because the framers didn't trust a "national" election for the very reasons that we saw in florida in 2000!!! The USA is a federated republic....not a democracy!!! The Federal Government is not SUPPOSED to represent the needs of the PEOPLE, but the needs of the states!!! That was the REAL reason for the Civil War [The northern states with all the population were feeling "moral" and stepping on the southeren state's way of life using Federal laws. but that got lost in all the religous slavery speeches] The USA federal government is supposed to be "elected" by your already elected officals. That's one reason it was created so very limited in scope versus what we have now. The only "popular" elections gauranteed in the Constitution were for House represenatives. Senators were supposed to represent the state govenments directly..."ambasadors to the federal govt" if you will. Senators were supposed to be your state offical's direct voice in congress...think of the wide spread ramifications of THAT change...do you think "patriot" would have gotten thru a wiser board of state governers? [or many of the pettty spending bills for that matter!]

The electoral college was created to be a third process outside the state govt or popular election. Again, thru voter laziness, the "well-doers" wanted popular election for everything... and that's just not the case. There's no constitutional provisioning for how a state chooses electors!!!! yep, read it again, there's NO constitutional provision for how the state chooses electors!!! Think again how the system has been perverte

Re:mistakes

[Stevyn]

That's a good point. I'm not sure why I got modded as a troll, but whatever I don't care. I always felt that the need for the electoral college was to prevent the candidates from only campaigning in large cities where they would get the most bang for their buck. I think that a few hundred years ago that was very important otherwise the people from New York and Philadelphia would be the most represented and people living on farms would never be heard or cared about.

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

[x3ro]

What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college? Mythologising the process by which the system was designed obscures the fact that the system, like all systems, is imperfect, arose from the given political circumstances of the day, and was designed to protect the interests of certain groups over others. The guys you're talking about didn't introduce democracy. The idea of democracy is thousands of years old. The actual *practise* of democracy only got off the ground once women got the vote: in the USA, that was in around 1920 for federal elections, I believe.

Re:mistakes

[Moofie]

How is it fair that the vote of somebody in Wyoming worth three to four times the vote of somebody in California?

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].

Re:mistakes

[Macgruder]

It's a compromise set forth by the founding fathers.

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

[Moofie]

Fill in the blanks.

Government of the ______.
By the ______.
For the ______.

Hint: The correct answer is not "States".

Re:mistakes

[Archie Steel]

Basically, you're saying that since irregularities always happen, one shouldn't try to monitor them and help improve the voting process. I disagree. Transparency in elections is essential to democracy. The process has to be fair and open, and the vote secret (thus free of coercition). The truth is that the 2000 elections were controversial; some monitoring can only help people regaining faith in the electoral process.

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:mistakes

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Who was it that said they don't care who wins the election, as long as they get to choose the candidates?

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?

Re:mistakes

[quax]

The US certainly survived the 2000 election but also managed to shatter an awful lot of credibility that this is a functioning democratic system.

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:mistakes

[TGK]

That's a very obvious and not terribly helpful comment. Thank you.

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.

Hey!

[Crystalmonkey]

Hey! We are perfectly capable of voting on our own thank you! The Diebold company assures me of that.

Jst a asmall nitpick

[JanneM]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy."

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.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Onan]

"The difference between America and England is that the English think 100 miles is a long distance and the Americans think 100 years is a long time."

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Yaztromo]

Well, assuming that *is* valid, is there a democracy that has existed, say, since the civil war, besides the US?

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.

Iceland

[Epeeist]

Iceland has had a parliament since the 10th century.

Have a look at other histories besides American ones to see which countries have had democratic institutions for a period of time.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[quax]

2nd Google fun fact of the day. Many people from Iceland believe there country is the oldest democracy because their first parliament was founded in the year 930. [randburg.com]

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Wanderer2]

The English civil war finished in 1651, giving 353 years of stable democracy.

Ooops. You forgot the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although it was a bloodless revolution, having the king overthrown isn't exactly a good example of stability (or democracy)! From that point on England itself has been pretty stable - although the composition of Great Britain/the UK has seen quite a few changes (the last big one being independence for most of Ireland in 1922).

Of course, there's the question of how democratic you have to be to count - few people had the vote in 1688. With each set of legislation from the Bill of Rights in 1689 to the last major overhaul of the franchise in 1928, England/Britain/the UK became more and more democratic, but I'm not sure whereabouts the line would be drawn saying "properly democratic from this point on."

Anyway, England definitely beats the US in terms of long-term stability, but the rest is up for discussion.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[quax]

Switzerland managed to be incredibly stable in war torn Europe retaining its current form since 1848. [swissworld.org]

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Our Man In Redmond]

Do you count Iceland? The Althing has been around since something like 987.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[nickco3]

I disagree. I would be interested in hearing of a country that has been more stable over the period since the civil war.

OK. Let's define our terms here: more stable means no revolutions, civil wars, major unrest, or invasions since the end of the US civil war in 1865. How many can you name in 5 minutes? Go! Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Iceland, Mauritius, Seychelles, Malta, bzzt. Out of time.

This is a good thing

[Pentagram]

...if the US wants to ask third-world countries to allow their elections to be monitored, it can now say that it's happy for its own processes to be monitored.

I'd have to agree.

[reality-bytes]

I believe it would be wise if every democracy invited 3rd-party observers in to monitor their election process.

If there is nothing to hide then there is everything to gain by proving that any given democracy is a true democracy.

Re:I'd have to agree.

[drmerope]

In fact, that's why we signed the agreement to have this done almost a decade ago. Contrary to the politically motivated suggestions otherwise, this was _not_ a response to 2000 election. We wanted to place monitors in other countries and got a response back something like, "Why don't you take monitors if you're so keen on this" and we said "sure".

2000 was no anomoly

[gad_zuki!]

Tell that to the people on Harris' Scrub list who were NOT felons and were not allowed to vote. I doubt you'd be saying things like "Sore/Loserman" if you went to your polling place and was turned away because the county is so corrupt it put together an especially messy list to discriminate against black voters.

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:2000 was no anomoly

[beakburke]

Sigh, why oh why don't you tell the WHOLE story. Shamlessly stolen from

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits -in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#2000_Election_Night Florida Purge of Convicted Felons from Voter Rolls Deceit 4 According to Fahrenheit, Bush cronies hired Data Base Technologies to purge Florida voters who might vote for Gore, and these potential voters were purged from the voting rolls on the basis of race. ("Second, make sure the chairman of your campaign is also the vote count woman. And that her state has hired a company that's gonna knock voters off the rolls who aren't likely to vote for you. You can usually tell 'em by the color of their skin.") As explained by the Palm Beach Post, Moore's suggestion is extremely incomplete, and on at least one fact, plainly false. The 1998 mayoral election in Miami was a fiasco which was declared void by Florida courts, because--in violation of Florida law--convicted felons had been allowed to vote. The Florida legislature ordered the executive branch to purge felons from the voting rolls before the next election. Following instructions from Florida officials, Data Base Technologies (DBT) aggressively attempted to identify all convicted felons who were illegally registered to vote in Florida. There were two major problems with the purge. First, several states allow felons to vote once they have completed their sentences. Some of these ex-felons moved to Florida and were, according to a court decision, eligible to vote. Florida improperly purged these immigrant felons. Second, the comprehensive effort to identify all convicted felons led to a large number of false positives, in which persons with, for example, the same name as a convicted felon, were improperly purged. Purged voters were, in most cases, notified months before the election and given an opportunity to appeal, but the necessity to file an appeal was in itself a barrier which probably discouraged some legitimate, non-felon citizens from voting. According to the Palm Beach Post, at least 1,100 people were improperly purged. The overbreadth of the purge was well-known in Florida before the election. As a result, election officials in 20 of Florida's counties ignored the purge list entirely. In these counties, convicted felons were allowed to vote. Also according to the Post, thousands of felons were improperly allowed to vote in the 20 non-purging counties. Analysis by Abigail Thernstrom and Russell G. Redenbaugh, dissenting from a report by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, suggests that about 5,600 felons voted illegally in Florida. (The Thernstrom/Redenbaugh dissent explains why little credit should be given to the majority report, which was produced by flagrantly ignoring data.) When allowed to vote, felons vote approximately 69 percent Democratic, according to a study in the American Sociological Review. Therefore, if the thousands of felons in the non-purging 20 counties had not been illegally allowed to vote, it is likely that Bush's statewide margin would have been substantially larger. Regardless, Moore's suggestion that the purge was conducted on the basis of race was indisputably false. As the Palm Beach Post details, all the evidence shows that Data Base Technologies did not use race as a basis for the purge. Indeed, DBT's refusal to take note of a registered voter's race was one of the reasons for the many cases of mistaken identity. DBT's computers had matched these people with felons, though in dozens of cases they did not share the same name, birthdate, gender or race...[A] review of state records, internal e-mails of DBT employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted. Records show that DBT told the state it would not use race as a criterion to identify felons. The list itself bears that out: More than 1,000 voters were matched with felons though they were of different races. The appeals record supports the Palm Beach Post's findings.

The U.S. is subject to monitoring

[GQuon]

For your information, the U.S. has allready admitted to having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, ready for use. The U.S. and Russia also keep reference samples of biological agents for use in counteracting biological weapons.

You may be interested to know that there are actually inspection/monitoring systems set up to monitor test ban treaties and such. So yes, the U.S. might be inspected, but I'm not sure it would be by the U.N. but rather by other states.
The U.N. Headquarters is situated in the larges city in the U.S. The open nature of the U.S. society, and the seismiological and radiological monitoring stations [seismo.ethz.ch] around the world help to reveal any test of a nuclear weapon on the planet. If I recall correctly, there is allready in place an agreement not to use nuclear weapons in space. New nuclear powers and any alien governments haven't signed that treaty.

Not specifically related to WMD, is the Open Skies Treaty [armscontrol.org], which allows other countries to do reconnaissance flights over the U.S.

(The moderators said this was Interesting, so you get a matter-of-fact reply.)

Two ways this can go

[Kohath]

1. Observers see no problems, report they see no problems, and we get to stop hearing made-up nonsense about widespread election problems.

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.

Re:Two ways this can go

[Kohath]

No. The purpose of an investigation is to find and present facts. If these facts suggest evidence of wrongdoing, then the judicial system decides whether or not there was wrongdoing. They then claim to find something and their claims have tangible consequenes.

Like the OJ trial?

No one will believe a result that's politically damaging to their side. That's the current reality of the US political scene. The two sides are further apart than truth is from fiction.

Lost faith?

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Those that lost faith in the process are those who never fully understood it in the first place, ie the electoral college and the possibility of a winner who didn't get the popular vote.

Re:Lost faith?

[1010011010]

Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton were both minority presidents (did not carry majority of popular vote). George Washington was elected unopposed.

People think things like that are funny. They also think that they are voting directly for a particular pair of candidates, when in fact they are merely recording their preference for President and Vice President. The U.S. has never had a directly elected president. The Federal government is a creature of the states, and the state governments elect the chief executive of the federal government that they created together.

Currently, many states apportion their votes in a winner-take-all manner. A few apportion them according to the popular vote. States can, however, apprtion their votes pretty much however they want. Don't like it? Talk to your state legislature.

Re:Lost faith?

[DavidTC]

No one said a damn thing about the majority vote.

Bill Clinton won the popular vote. He simply didn't win more than 50% of the popular vote. He got 45% or whatever, and the other side got 40% or whatever.

It's not the same situation at all. Quite a lot of presidents don't win the majority, very few of them don't win the popular vote.

Bah

[Wyatt Earp]

No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e le ction%2C_1876

http://www.michaellorenzen.com/1876.html

"In 1876 the election for the President of the United States ended in a dispute. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received 184 electoral votes, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes received 165, and 20 electoral votes were uncertain, two different sets of returns being certified. The Electoral Commission was formed to settle the result. The disputed results involved 19 electors from Florida, Louisana, and South Carolina as well as one from Oregon. In those states, the official returns favored the Democrats, but the elections were marked by fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters and the Republican dominated electoral commissions were able to throw out enough votes to allow the Republicans to win those states. The result was two sets of returns, one certified by the governor favoring the Republicans and one certified by the state legislatures favoring the Democrats.

In the case of Oregon, the votes were clearly in favor of the Republicans. However, one of the Republican electors was a postmaster. The Democratic governor claimed that the elector was constitutionally disqualified on the grounds of holding a Federal office and therefore substituted a Democratic elector in his place."

Re:Bah

[Scrameustache]

No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?

Because no one monitored anybody else's elections in the 19th century.

Re:Bah

[kbahey]

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:

• Then, the USA was not as influential in world affairs. Now it is.
• Then, the USA was not a super power, nor the only super power. Now it is.
• Then, the USA did not have a pre-emtive war doctrine. Now it does.
• Then, the USA did not invade a soveriegn country illegally, against international law. Now it does.
• Then, the USA did not say: "You are either with us, or with the terrorist". Now it does.

I am sure there are more.

Re:Bah

[Blastrogath]

* Then, the USA did not invade a soveriegn country illegally, against international law. Now it does.

What about the US/Mexican war? US citezens moved into and siezed through military power: Texas, New Mexico, and California. Have none of you ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny" doctrine?

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:Bah

[kbahey]

All good points for sure.

But again, it was a different time. Just a little before that slavery was legal. Manifest destiny is another version of colonialism, and every nation who had the means (money, arms, ...etc.) acted anyway it liked provided it did not incur the wrath of other powerful nations (who hate competition mainly).

Now is another time, with international treaties and internation laws, to which the US is a signatory.

I am under no illusion, we live in a practical world, where reality is not in sync with ethics or morals. Countries will break the laws they signed.

However, when you do so, at least do not underestimate the rest of the world, and take them as idiots, and try to preach to them that what you did is 'right', and 'good', and sell it to them as promoting freedom and democracy.

People are not that stupid.

Why?

[DAldredge]

Why aren't they checking on the dead voting in Chicago or the illegals voiting in Southern California?

This is great news...

[robotoil]

As an American, I welcome oversight from a foreign country. Oh, any by all means, let it be a 3rd world nation where they take the vote seriously.

This Has Happened Before...

[PipianJ]

As in the Columbia Spectator... [columbiaspectator.com]

The OSCE was actually invited by the State Department (unlike the attempted invitation of the United Nations by Democrats in the House) and has observed elections in the US before, such as during the 2002 mid-terms and the California gubernatorial race. Indeed, the former Bush, in 1990, signed the Copenhagen Document which stated that signers (such as the US) may "invite observers from any other [OSCE] participating States ... to observe the course of their national election proceedings."

Re:This Has Happened Before...

[dajak]

European countries with stable democracies also invite the OSCE in to increase its legitimacy. It is clearly not a humiliation.

Huh? "Most stable?"

[mwillems]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy"

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...

New Zealand

[driptray]

The world's oldest (and possibly most stable) democracy is New Zealand. This is primarily due to the fact they were the first nation to allow women to vote.

You can't call yourself a democracy if 50% of the adult populatiuon is barred from voting.

What's the big deal?

[Malfourmed]

Even the biggest, most ethical companies are audited every year*. In fact, the willingnes to submit oneself to external scrutiny sends a much more comforting signal that there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

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.

CNN has more

[ojg]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/internat ional.observers/ [cnn.com]

This story explains why it is the OSCE that has been invited to do the job and not the UN, which is more common. Of course it has to do with the US congress where mentioning the two letters U.N. is worse than mentioning the four letters f.u.c.k.

As a European living in the US, I remember that back in 2000 I mentioned to my friends using UN elections monitors for the next election, after which I was verbally lynched for about an hour.

Apparently not a popular idea :)

What is the difference between US and "3rd World"

[museumpeace]

Our government spends way more than it takes in. A huge percentage of our finished goods are made in other countries, even high tech goods. We start wars on skimpy evidence just to keep the population in line behind a shakey leader. The government constantly puts out an interpretation of its situation wildly at odds with what is reported in the world press. Our health care system is available to shrinking portion of our population. And now we hear that somebody else has to check and see if our election process is rigged. All that is left is for our credit rating to catch up with our deficit spending and the last of our green card engineers to go back to home countries where their wages will soon be buying them a better life than than they do here.

For the record...

[deblau]

Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia [cia.gov] and Burkina Faso [cia.gov], respectively. Kazakhstan [cia.gov] is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo [cia.gov] (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo [cia.gov], which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.

Previous offers of election assistance

[dkleinsc]

Shortly after the mess that was the 2000 election, Fidel Castro offered to send Cuban election observers to Florida. I guess he does have a sense of humor.

This is NOT humiliating.

[pyrrhonist]

for some Americans this comes as a humiliation

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'.

How humiliating

[HangingChad]

One of these days we're going to need to face up to the fact that the only thing "United" about the US is the name.

Perhaps it's time to consider an amicable dissolution. Split the country right down the Mississippi River and give everyone ten years to pick a side and move. Or let people vote on what side they want to live and make the division based on a percentage of the population. Authorize some kind of land swap deal so families on one side or the other can trade for property of near equal value. Provide tax credits and subsidies for moving.

If you choose to travel to or stay on...whichever side...you agree to live by the laws and standards on that side of the country.

The right wing side would get all the religious freaks and could ban drugs, porn, abortion, make being gay a crime, reinstate the draft and set up whatever kind of religious symbols they want on government buildings and really enjoy getting the Ashcroft/Cheney/Renquist/Scalia treatment. Paradoxically the same type society our country's founders moved over here to get away from.

The progressive side of the country could live life their own way.

My suggestion is we give the right the side that has the most prisons already built. That way they don't go broke the first couple years.

Hey, just because we started out united it doesn't mean we have to stay that way.

World's Most Stable Democracy

[madsenj37]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy."

We are not a democracy. We are a very democratic republic. This is a very important point that many people misunderstand.

Misleading slashdot article

[ildon]

This is the most misleading Slashdot article I have ever read.

If you actually look at their site they are also monitoring elections in France, Canada, Greece, Spain, and Australia [osce.org]. Hardly "third world countries", and I don't remember any recent civil wars in them either.

The layout for the 2004 ballots

[quigonn]

Bush [ ]
[ ] Kerry

Let the courts decide which field belongs to which candidate

Re:Uhm, no.

[Peyna]

The rest of the world has a very vested interest in the contiuance of the United States of America. If faith in elections falls apart, it could have serious effects on the country, and if the US were in turmoil, it would significantly negatively impact the rest of the world.

Re:Uhm, no.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah, why would Europe care?

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.

[Spad]

That's great - until the actions of the US start to have a significant effect on the rest of the world, which they already have. Then you start caring about who's in power over there.

Re:US votes?

[wrf3]

The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the concept of the popular vote. They rejected it for excellent reasons.

If Bush wins both the popular and electoral votes in November then what will you find to complain about?

Re:US votes?

[lavaface]

If Bush wins both the popular and electoral votes in November then what will you find to complain about?

Diebold?

Re:US votes?

[CaptainCarrot]

was paralysed when informed of WTC attacks

You're believing Michael Moore about this, aren't you? This is one of his many lies. Witnesses on the spot have a different story.

On the other hand, Kerry said of himself that when he learned of the attacks, he sat frozen for over a half hour. (This was on the 8 July Larry King Live interview.) Even if we were to believe that Bush froze, it was for no more than 7 minutes.

Good thing it wasn't Kerry on the spot then, huh?

Re:US votes?

[lawpoop]

"Kerry said of himself that when he learned of the attacks, he sat frozen for over a half hour.".

He wasn't exactly commander in chief at the time, you know.

In the end, you have nothing but lies

[NSash]

You're believing Michael Moore about this, aren't you? This is one of his many lies. Witnesses on the spot have a different story.

Spread your disinformation elsewhere. Here's a video [thememoryhole.org] that shows every instant from the moment Anderew Card whispered in Bush's ear until Bush got out of his chair.

no, that is NOT the assumption

[subtropolis]

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:

The President, in front of very young students, paused for a quick and quiet moment as he focused on the challenge. His leadership and resolve were soon evident to the world.

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.**

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]*** But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave. (my emphasis)

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:US votes?

[Grym]

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!

...needed Cheney with him at 9/11 comission hearings...

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.

...was paralysed when informed of WTC attacks...

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.

...his religious delusions of granduer ("God speaks through me")...

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.

...his alienation of the US from the world community, his simplistic black/white view of the world ("You're either with us, or against us"), his occasional grammatical gaffes...

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:US votes?

[Holi]

As an ex-minister (Episcopalian, suffered a crisis of faith that made me question whether I was fit to lead others spiritualy). I hoped God spoke through me, but NEVER would I declare to the world that God did indeed speak through me. I find it terrifying that our president uses that argument. It is religious zealots like that that lead down the very dark path.

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.

Re:US votes?

[Entropius]

If you lived in a heavily liberal state, your voice wouldn't be heard either--only the handful of states close to 50% matter.

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.

Re:US votes?

[Zak3056]

Yep, it's called the popular vote.

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?

[Valar]

Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?

Re:US votes?

[ip_fired]

No. Because there are differences in what a person who lives in California or New York wants out of a political system compared to someone who lives in Wyoming or Utah. I live in Utah, and as it is even now, the candidates very very rarely even THINK about what I would like my government to do. If you got rid of the electoral college, then I might as well live in my own country, because I'm not going to get anything that the huge masses of humanity in California don't want. And that is very likely what it would lead to. A large number of states that are ignored by one of the most powerful offices in our government because we would not affect the outcome in any election. I'm all for some type of change, but not one that will diminish the little power that I do have as a voting citizen in a small state.

Re:US votes?

[Zak3056]

Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?

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:US votes?

[Onan]

While removing the layer of abstraction that the Electoral College represents would improve things somewhat, the more fundamental problem is using a plurality vote in the first place.

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:US votes?

[Rayonic]

If the popular vote was implemented before 2000 we wouldn't be suffering from the insane megalomanical texan from hell(aka as 'w' in the sheep-fucker/slave master circles).

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?

[Onan]

These arguments all seem to come to, "but then we'd have to pay attention to how people actually voted!"

I'm having a very hard time finding this to be a deterrent.

Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty

[gtoomey]

So you think it OK for the US to monitor elections in Iraq or Bosnia, but other countries can't monitor US elections?

Countries like Switzerland & Australia view the 2000 presidential election as a farce

Re:2000 election

[Zak3056]

if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I haven't done the math myself (and I doubt you have either) but generally speaking, the states with the highest population (i.e. the most electoral votes) generally go Democrat. If you apportioned electors based on percentage of the vote in the state, I think it's more than likely that big Republican gains in states like California (45 electors) would offset the smaller states.

If you aportioned electors based on congressional districts, with the winner of the state picking up the bonus 2, I think it would be a Republican landslide.

Just a thought.

Re:2000 election

[http]

danheskett noted,

The fact is that there is no voting technology currently used anywhere that can collect 6 million votes in one 12-hour day and tabulate them with a 100% accuracy rate.

Lay off the ganja (I'd like some of whatever you were smoking, but only _after_ I post), or visit some countries other than your own. Marked paper ballots, counted by _humans_, typically two independant teams comprised of representatives from each major party, and counted in public. No-one goes home until both teams come up with the same numbers, and those numbers add up to the number of voters signing in to vote at the polling station, and nobody from the public has said, "You guys dropped one on the floor."
It is not rocket science, and with at least four people and two (usually opposing) agendas involved, the chance of a 'parity error' getting past is lower that the chance of a parity error read off of the RAM inside your computer. 100% ? Maybe not, but certainly more that four nines. Your suggestion of a 99% accuracy rate from machines is a red herring.

2000 Election Bumper Sticker

[ImaLamer]

I always wanted to make this bumper sticker for Florida Democrats:

Don't Blame Me, I Accidentally Voted For Buchanan

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[CrowScape]

These people were invited on behalf of Dems. But, don't think this is a move designed to facilitate fair elections. Here's Yahoo's report [yahoo.com] a while back, which gives a few more details such as what states will be observed; Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia. Interesting how these five states all went republican last election, no? And if they want to observe corruption, why not go to the most corrupt county in the US; Cook County IL? Or, running close behind; Hudson County, NJ? Maybe because these go consistantly Democrat? Why not examine the widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin, where Democratic operatives were out on the street passing out cigarettes to the homeless to get them to vote specifically for Gore and where there are already signs of attempted voter fraud in 2004 [gmtoday.com]? (BTW; Wisconsin went Gore, but just barely) Seeing a pattern yet? This is a purely partisan action. All that this says is the aftermath of the 2004 elections is going to be nastier than 2000.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[lavaface]

Well, I live in Georgia and can understand why our elections should be monitored. In the 2002 elections, we were the first state to have entirely switched over to Diebold elctronic voting machines. That election, Sen. Max Cleland and Gov. Roy Barnes were expected to win judging from polls immediately before the election. Curiously, the Republican Saxby Chamblis won the Senate race and Sonny (serously) Perdue won the race for Governor. To be quite honest, I don't think that they stole the election; there are other reasons the polls could've swung so rapidly. Still, I can't help but wonder sometimes whether our elections were a "test" case for public acceptance of anomolous electronic voting machine results.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Archie Steel]

Seeing a pattern yet?

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:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[TykeClone]

Illinois - 1960. Hizonner Mayor Daley (D - Chicago) delivered the state to Kennedy in about as close of a race as Florida 2000.

Gore likely would've

[Aexia]

continued the focus on terrorism that Clinton acquired towards the end of his term. A Gore administration would have continued to foster the law enforcement environment that would have connected the dots that could've prevented 9/11.

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.

Re:European Democracy?

[HuguesT]

Jeez, how hard is it to do some fact checking before posting things like that?

Haider was never PM of Austria, his party was a member of the ruling coalition though in 2000, and he is governor of the state of Carinthia. Read wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] to get some details.

Haider is an avowed anti-EU politician. In 2000 some EU member countries did impose limited diplomatic sanction [guardian.co.uk] on Austria. In this case this meant cancelling of visits, recall of ambassadors, etc, and had zero direct economic consequence. I.e this was a gesture of disapproval, and yes any country is entitled to do that, this is was diplomacy is all about. Israel did exactly the same BTW.

FYI Haider is a neo-Nazi revisionist [time.com]. For once you'd like Europeans to do something when people like Haider get too close to actually governing a country. You remember the last time the European did nothing?

Nice double standards you've got there.

Re:uncontrollable laughter

[jb.hl.com]

So? I know Fox, they'll just make a big map with all of the borders between European countries removed and label this new country "FRANCE".

Sneaky Ailes bastard.

Re:I was looking for a comment to moderate...

[nullportal]

> Umm - not Iceland with the rule of the Althing since about the 1100s? Not Switzerland? Granted, Iceland became a colony of Denmark, but it had a long long history of democratic rule before then. Switzerland became ruled by a duly appointed/elected junta in WWII, but there seemed to be widespread common consent to this as a matter of national survival so there seems to be the requisite continuity, accounting for wartime exigencies. It's theocratic phase, much earlier, was not country wide. If you are going to count interruptions, don't forget that the US in Reconstruction, or at and after the time of the death of Reconstruction, suffered a certain amount of democratius interruptus while sorting out whether the million pound Federal gorilla or state power was to be the predominant political influence - a struggle that was won by the million pound gorilla and has remained a stable victory to this day. All hail King Kong - his farts truly dooooo smell sweet. The essence of this thread is: Is American democracy as advertised, or does it warrant scrutiny. Plenty of the comments are on point. Narrower issues miss the point.