International team to monitor US. Presidential Election

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A team of international observers will monitor the presidential election in November, according to the U.S. State Department.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was invited to monitor the election by the State Department. The observers will come from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

It will be the first time such a team has been present for a U.S. presidential election. [continued]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/international.observers/

[Ivan Seeking]

"Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers."

[JohnDubYa]

After hearing about Bush's support for allowing foreigners to oversee our Nation's elections, I may switch my vote to Kerry. At least I know where he stands.

Oh wait, I don't. Who's running on the Independent ticket? Libertarian?

[Adam]

It's about time someone took the US elections seriously, since the public won't.

[wasteofo2]

I don't know if anyone else saw this, but on Sunday on CNBC, Howard Dean was substitute-hosting on Topic A with Tina Brown, and some woman brought a laptop with a program that counts electronic votes. Within a minute and a half, she had shown him how to alter the results of the election. It really was as simple as opening up the folder containing the program, clicking one option, highlighting the numbers of votes people got and changing them.

So with that in mind, I'm glad we have some sort of monitoring going on.

[Dissident Dan]

After hearing about Bush's support for allowing foreigners to oversee our Nation's elections, I may switch my vote to Kerry. At least I know where he stands.

I don't undertand your position. Do you claim that we have flawless, ethically-run elections? Do you think that our reputation for running elections is not already tarnished? What could be the harm in allowing observers?

[Ivan Seeking]

I would think that anyone in a free society would welcome oversight.

What does it say to the rest of the free world when a free, democratic nation is afraid of some peer review and oversight?

[JohnDubYa]

Sorry, but I do not want foreigners involved in our election process, whatsoever. Who said they were unbiased to begin with? If the French or Germans are involved in this process, George W. can kiss his election good-bye. In a sense, it would serve him right.

[russ_watters]

I don't know if anyone else saw this, but on Sunday on CNBC, Howard Dean was substitute-hosting on Topic A with Tina Brown, and some woman brought a laptop with a program that counts electronic votes. Within a minute and a half, she had shown him how to alter the results of the election. It really was as simple as opening up the folder containing the program, clicking one option, highlighting the numbers of votes people got and changing them.

So with that in mind, I'm glad we have some sort of monitoring going on. That's a made-for-tv publicity stunt, not real life. In real life, you, at the very least, have to break into a secure system to get at the data. I would think that anyone in a free society would welcome oversight.

What does it say to the rest of the free world when a free, democratic nation is afraid of some peer review and oversight? The reason I'm skittish about this is the peers part. Who, precisely are our peers and can they really be impartial? Who oversees the overseers?

[JohnDubYa]

Some lady proved that if you can open someone's Excel spreadsheet, you can change some of the entries. Wow, Topic A looks like real quality programming. :rolleyes:

[amp]

I welcome the overseers also after reading about how the last election was scandalized (here: http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency ) I wouldn't mind if a bunch of obsevers came to moniter.

[JohnDubYa]

Exactly where are they going to monitor? Let me guess: Democratic enclaves.

[Ivan Seeking]

Exactly where are they going to monitor? Let me guess: Democratic enclaves.

Sure. Any requirement for an honest election is obviously a conspiracy against the Republicans...an international conspiracy no less!

[plover]

Sorry, but I do not want foreigners involved in our election process, whatsoever.Should other countries ever have their elections monitored? Or are you proposing a double standard?
Who said they were unbiased to begin with?Given that actual election officials have a greater chance of being biased than outside observers, what's your point? Why is an external opinion a threat to your world?If the French or Germans are involved in this process, George W. can kiss his election good-bye.Evidence? The most obvious implication of this statement as it stands is that you don't think George W. can be re-elected without rigging the election, and thus we need to keep out observers so this will not be detected. I doubt that's what you wanted to say.

I suppose an alternative reading might be that you are asking us to believe that French and German observers, with their vast network of ties to the American companies that manufacture electronic voting machines, would be able to rig the voting machines in favor of Democrats...In a sense, it would serve him right.In a sense ... ? :biggrin:

On the other hand, do you really want to see what would happen to this country if there is even solid circumstantial evidence of the election being rigged? Why has the administration not banned the current generation of electronic voting machines as perhaps the greatest threat to U.S. domestic order in recent memory? But it's not like the appearance of conflict of interest has ever bothered the current administration. Or, apparently, bothered many of the administration's supporters either.

[JohnDubYa]

Should other countries ever have their elections monitored? Or are you proposing a double standard?

Sure, when situations become especially egregious, such as when the ruling power is a dictatorship or armed militias are keeping people from voting. I fail to see how anything occuring in 2000 approaches such a situation.


Given that actual election officials have a greater chance of being biased than outside observers, what's your point?

That is not a given. Bush is not well-liked by many foreigners. So do you have any evidence to back your claim? How do you propose to find foriegn voting observers with no opinion on the US' war with Iraq?

The very fact that Liberals screamed about voting procedures is naturally going to lean the observers' focus towards protecting their voting rights, while ignoring the voting rights of others. We can see whether or not that is the case by examing which regions of the country they focus their attention. If they migrate towards Democratic blocks for monitoring, would that not be solid evidence of their bias? Is Orange County going to receive the same monitoring as Dade County? I doubt it.

Why is an external opinion a threat to your world?

It isn't merely an "opinion." Biased observers can poison the entire political process. If some German declares that voting rights were impeded, what do you do then?


Evidence? The most obvious implication of this statement as it stands is that you don't think George W. can be re-elected without rigging the election,

False premise. You assume that I think outside observers are going to be fair in their treatment of those voting for Bush and Kerry.

I suppose an alternative reading might be that you are asking us to believe that French and German observers, with their vast network of ties to the American companies that manufacture electronic voting machines, would be able to rig the voting machines in favor of Democrats...

You are relying on the fallacy of limited options.

On the other hand, do you really want to see what would happen to this country if there is even solid circumstantial evidence of the election being rigged?

RIGGED? Strong words. Show evidence that the elections were rigged first, then we'll talk.

But most of your points are moot to my argument: Foreign countries should not participate in any way with our election process. This is not a third-world country with a mad dictator ordering his militia to shoot those that vote for the opposition. It is a matter of sovereignty to me. And George W. has lost some good will from me by allowing this to happen. It is none of Germany's business to worry about our election process. These are OUR GODDAMN ELECTIONS!

And George W. can count me out for support this year. What next? Are we going to have international monitoring of our Supreme Court decisions? Are Germans going to sit in on our trial court proceedings?

[Dissident Dan]

How exactly could observers taint our elections?

Also keep in mind that observers would not just be any Joe Schmoe from the street, but people who are trained, objective experts.

The idea that observers would be biased and therefore compromise our elections has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

[phatmonky]

It's a WASTE OF MONEY.

[JohnDubYa]

How exactly could observers taint our elections?

I already explained. When observers point out irregularities (real or imagined), it clouds the entire election. What do you at that point?

Also keep in mind that observers would not just be any Joe Schmoe from the street, but people who are trained, objective experts.

Objective? How do you determine whether or not they are truly objective? How do you train someone to be objective?


The idea that observers would be biased and therefore compromise our elections has to be one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

A weak refutation if I ever heard one.

[amp]

J DUBYA: Sure, when situations become especially egregious, such as when the ruling power is a dictatorship or armed militias are keeping people from voting. I fail to see how anything occuring in 2000 approaches such a situation.

Read this: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=297&row=1 and this http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2

not that much difference from a dictatorships ruling power

If they migrate towards Democratic blocks for monitoring, would that not be solid evidence of their bias? Is Orange County going to receive the same monitoring as Dade County? I doubt it.

It was the Dem areas that were blocked from voting or whos votes were 'Spoiled' and it was Dems who were predominatly placed on the 'felons' list and removed from voter rolls.

RIGGED? Strong words. Show evidence that the elections were rigged first, then we'll talk.

Again, I refer you to the Greg Palast investigation in Florida.

[JohnDubYa]

Jeb Bush arranged to steal the election in 2000 for his brother, and is keeping it stolen for his own re-election.

This is an objective appraisal of the 2000 election? This is the primary source of evidence for bringing in international obsevers?

What next? Michael Moore?

[Ivan Seeking]

So I'm wondering if people opposed to observers here in turn support the presense of UN observers in other nations, like Iraq for example?

[Prometheus]

You are relying on the fallacy of limited options.

What next? Are we going to have international monitoring of our Supreme Court decisions? Are Germans going to sit in on our trial court proceedings?

You are relying on the fallacy of the slippery slope.

[russ_watters]

How exactly could observers taint our elections?
Well, it hasn't been explained what exactly they would be doing - but if they are simply observing and not saying anything, then what is the point of having them? And if, like JD asked, they comment, what do we do then? Do we act based on their comments?So I'm wondering if people opposed to observers here in turn support the presense of UN observers in other nations, like Iraq for example? Absolutely. Looking for a double standard? That isn't one: Iraq has never had democratic elections. That makes it a vastly different situation.Greg Palast investigation in Florida. A foreign tabloid reporter hawking a book? Riiiiiight.... From the site: there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent. Of 94,000 purged felons, only 3,000 were actually felons and the rest should not have been purged? Sorry, but I just plain don't buy it. That's pretty big for something we haven't heard of from real media sources. Then again, its in a book so it must be true, right? :rolleyes:It was the Dem areas that were blocked from voting or whos votes were 'Spoiled' and it was Dems who were predominatly placed on the 'felons' list and removed from voter rolls. And its also Dems who tend to vote after they're dead. So, hmm...

Anyway, how many observers are there going to be? There are what, 100,000 polling places? JD and I have brought up possible negatives - does anyone see how they could make a positive contribution to our election process? What specifically could they do that would be a good thing? Run me through a scenario for each case: 1. if they found no impropriety, 2. if they found an impropriety.

[kat]

Russ, others- Electoral observation is done in many different countries including well established democracies. It is becoming more of a habit and of interest to observe and be observed. What's wrong with that? to keep democracy alive, alert and improving, to keep people and organisations interested and learning? Elections in European countries are observed, peculiarities, problems and improvements are freely discussed, people from different countries come and see and go and take a look as well. there is a worldwide net of observers observing. Our country is everywhere, and is also a very good electoral observer. Why not the object of electoral observation also?


I think that it's important to show the world that even the United States is willing to open itself up to monitoring, it gives others less of an excuse to not be open to it as well. Serious international observation might point out deficencies and easy solutions as well. Not that our country hasn't got the resources to find all of that on its own, but the people who I know that do electoral work all the time accumulate a lot of knowledge that can encourage improvement, this is information that should be shared. For example, in 2000 we saw that there was a tremendous need of new design for ballots. The OSCE (the EU too, but OSCE does it better) has very good teams doing Technical Assitance in ballot design, in "marking ballots vs punching them", in perhaps doing away with punching machines and re-converting to manual punching.

BTW, some clarification: in spite of its name the OSCE is very much an American product, the USA is very involved in a positive way, so if OSCE comes to observe it will NOT be the Europeans but a cooperation of Americans and the others. The OSCE is an electoral observing agency that's very well participated by Americans since its beginning and one that without Americans would NOT have existed and would NOT be maintained. Keep that in mind.

An aside, I'm very glad to see the OSCE observing in place of the U.N. observers that the Dem's were calling for.

*edit: I wanted to offer the relevent portion of the appendix from the Paris Summit in 1990.
(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings.

http://www.osce.org/docs/english/1990-1999/summits/paris90e.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

Absolutely. Looking for a double standard? That isn't one: Iraq has never had democratic elections. That makes it a vastly different situation.

I think so considering the sudden, mystical distrust of UN observers. I have never heard these objections about UN observers until now. I absolutely do find this to be a double standard.

Well, it hasn't been explained what exactly they would be doing - but if they are simply observing and not saying anything, then what is the point of having them? And if, like JD asked, they comment, what do we do then? Do we act based on their comments?

Presumably the observers would report violations such as those that allegedly took place in Florida when blacks were denied their constitutional rights. I'm not sure of the exact legal mechanism that would come into play given wide spread or significant fraud, but the word of the observers clearly would not be the final say. In a worst case the final judgement would come from the Surpeme Court. Its not like we're handing over power to a foreign agent.

[JohnDubYa]

Russ, others- Electoral observation is done in many different countries including well established democracies. It is becoming more of a habit and of interest to observe and be observed. What's wrong with that?[/quote]

Read my previous posts. I am not going to repeat myself.


BTW, some clarification: in spite of its name the OSCE is very much an American product, the USA is very involved in a positive way, so if OSCE comes to observe it will NOT be the Europeans but a cooperation of Americans and the others.

Just bring the Americans and I have fewer objections. If the Americans are truly all that you say they are, who needs the foreigners?


An aside, I'm very glad to see the OSCE observing in place of the U.N. observers that the Dem's were calling for.

I will agree with you here if the UN was the alternative.


Presumably the observers would report violations such as those that allegedly took place in Florida when blacks were denied their constitutional rights. I'm not sure of the exact legal mechanism that would come into play given wide spread or significant fraud, but the word of the observers clearly would not be the final say. In a worst case the final judgement would come from the Surpeme Court. Its not like we're handing over power to a foreign agent.

No, we're giving a foreign agency the power to null and void in their eyes our elections, as if it is any of their business in the first place.

It is like having a foreign agency oversee the refereeing at a football game. One team wins, and the foreign agency says there were problems with the officiating. Now what do you do? Re-play the game? How do you know the unfairness wasn't equally distributed between the two teams.

This is why it is crucial to find out where they plan to oversee the elections. Russ is right, if they oversee all 100,000 polling places, or choose a representative RANDOM sample, then that would alleviate some of my concerns. However, if they are posted in Democratic strongholds, then that is obviously a problem. If you want to oversee the officiating at a football game, you cannot just look at those calls that went against one of the teams. ALL calls must be considered.

Some of you guys jumped all over the voting oversight and declared it a good thing, but you cannot even answer the most basic questions. First, you don't know if oversight will be applied fairly across all polling stations, or just in the hot spots from 2000. Second, you don't know what mechanism exists for correcting supposed (and I do mean "supposed") violations. Third, you cannot establish any evidence that suggests the oversight agency is truly objective.

[Prometheus]

No, we're giving a foreign agency the power to null and void in their eyes our elections, as if it is any of their business in the first place.

First, you don't know if oversight will be applied fairly across all polling stations, or just in the hot spots from 2000. Second, you don't know what mechanism exists for correcting supposed (and I do mean "supposed") violations. Third, you cannot establish any evidence that suggests the oversight agency is truly objective.
Just so I do not draw incorrect inferences from this post, let me ask you 1 or 2 questions? Are you against international election oversight in all countries, or only in the U.S? If you are not against oversight in other countries, then I have a second question: How would your statements here be any less relevant to any other countriy?

[kat]

No, we're giving a foreign agency the power to null and void in their eyes our elections, as if it is any of their business in the first place.
They don't have power to null and void anything. They have the power to observe, to learn, and to offer their insights. It is also very much "their" business, as we made it "their" business at the Paris Summit in 1990 when we agreed as a member state to take part in observing and being observed. This is a binding agreement.

You keep using words like "applied fairly", "correcting violations" and "officiating" I think you are giving more power to these observers then they deserve, in this instance. Observation with the OCSE is not run the same in free and democratic nations with a long history of strong democracies in the same manner as it was in such places as the Balkans, or Afghanistan.

Also, they have not decided..if, or how many are even coming until September when an initial team will arrive to decide if and how. When they decide IF they will and how many will..they have EVERY right to as agreed to in the Paris Summit of 1990. What? you didn't know that...were you snoozing?!

[JohnDubYa]

Just so I do not draw incorrect inferences from this post, let me ask you 1 or 2 questions? Are you against international election oversight in all countries, or only in the U.S?

I don't particularly care if other countries lack respect for their own soveriegnty. If they want to invite foreign agencies to watch their elections, that's their business. My view is strictly concerned with America and her sovereignty.

Now if you want a blanket statement where I think the world would be compelled to offer oversight, then I would suggest that voting improprieties would have to be egregious to the point where the democratic process fails. Nothing that happened in 2000 approaches that level.

They don't have power to null and void anything.

I said "in their eyes."

They have the power to observe, to learn, and to offer their insights.

They are not being invited to merely learn and offer insight. The call for oversight went far beyond such benign purpose.

It is also very much "their" business, as we made it "their" business at the Paris Summit in 1990 when we agreed as a member state to take part in observing and being observed. This is a binding agreement.

[quote]You keep using words like "applied fairly", "correcting violations" and "officiating" I think you are giving more power to these observers then they deserve, in this instance.

Question: Are they going to oversee the elections for every polling station, or a RANDOM sample of polling stations? Yes or no?

The fact that a third party is overseeing an election could very well influence how the voting process takes place. It is imperative that oversight be administered fairly and across the political spectrum, not isolated to those areas where subjective analysis has determined that oversight is needed.


You are trying to water down their involvement to the point where they are completely uninvolved. But you are not wanting them overseeing our elections simply so that we can "learn."


Observation with the OCSE is not run the same in free and democratic nations with a long history of strong democracies in the same manner as it was in such places as the Balkans, or Afghanistan.

All this time we have heard how horrid the election process was in 2000, and oversight is absolutely necessary or the democratic process is in serious jeapordy. Now we are told that our democratic process is strong and that the OCSE is just here to comment on how the elections proceeded. Ivan compares the US to Iraq. amp posts articles that (clumsily) make the US out to be Haiti. But everything is really okay, and the OCSE are just bystanders and witnesses, nothing more.

As for the Paris Summit, I don't care what we signed. If we were foolish to allow foreigners to influence our national elections when we signed the Summit, then we were foolish. They haven't been here before, so obviously it is up to our discretion to invite them in. So don't invite them, is all I am saying.

The Supreme Court may have something to say about this someday.

[plover]

When a dictator shoots people who refuse to vote for him, this does not distort democracy as an institution. In virtually any case of this kind of tactic, no one outside the regime in question will defend the practice, and it is obviously outside the bounds of any remotely sane concept of democracy. To prevent this kind of situation can uphold the ideal of democracy, but failing to prevent it, while it may not reflect well on the policies of certain countries or international bodies, does not leave uncertainty as to the meaning of democracy in the world, or as to the form of government in the country in question. What happens, however, when a large country, generally viewed as stronghold of democratic governance, gives even the impression that its procedures might have been violated on a large scale for ideological purposes, and under the cover of a technology that allows no clear access to the evidence that would either confirm or allay suspicion?

The situation in the U.S. right now is that we have an administration that achieved power in a fashion that left questions concerning it's legitimacy under anything other than a shallow and formulaic reading of U.S. law (i.e. the strict forms necessary for transfer of power were effected, but the decision making process had a lot of arguably dodgy bits), that has demonstrable connections to large corporations that range from the suggestively slimy (Halliburton) to the indefensibly corrupt (Enron), that gives the impression to many of having lied to the American public in order to prosecute a war for which a desire had been articulated well before the administration achieved power, that has demanded a kind of loyalty oath from some government employees (mostly scientists) whose most direct precedent is probably the McCarthy hearings, and who has a shown a willingness to favor ideology over evidence on numerous issues--most prominently scientific research and law enforcement.

It is entirely irrelevant whether you (or I, for that matter) personally find the evidence for any of the allegations listed above compelling. The fact remains that the president has succeeded in producing a climate in which a sizable percentage of the populace (and in addition, a large percentage of world opinion) view him as entirely lacking in integrity in the execution of his job, and that part of that perception traces to the appearance that familial and personal ties were used in illegitimate and illegal ways to secure his office.

Now we bring the current crop of electronic voting machines on the stage. They store their results entirely in a form that is inaccessible to direct human perception. Most of their software is widely viewed as flawed by experts in computer security. There has already been an instance where use of these machines gave an appearance of impropriety which has not been (as far as I am aware) compellingly refuted.

Add on top of this, that many of these machines are manufactured by companies with ties to the administration, that plans for postponing elections have been floated, that inconsistencies in the voting rolls which have the appearance of favoring the current administration have already been found.

As I said before, it doesn't matter what any single person thinks of all this -- it may just sound like a conspiracy theory to you -- what matters is that vastly more people than at any time in recent American history do not trust the people in power to participate fairly in this election. If there is any clear sense that the results of this election smell funny, there is a good chance that something will break, I have no real idea what -- whether it will just be some kind of rioting, or whether it might be something more complicated, or whether it even might be some kind of civil disobedience on a grand scale -- but it certainly seems plausible that this administration, faced with large scale protest, and given their past actions, might go so far as to institute martial law (their pets on Fox and talk radio cheering all the while).

Decide for yourself what this picture looks like, but is this really an America you want to live in? Sure I'm presenting what's more or less a worst case scenario, but is it a chance you want to take?

International observers are the current method the world has worked out to deal with elections that seem, for whatever reason, to be problematic, and real instability in the U.S., given its current position in the world economy, would be problematic for pretty much everybody. Are observers the best way to address the problem in this particular case? I have no idea. Will they be enough to prevent some kind of particularly vile fallout from this election if something happens? I doubt it.

But as a group, those who speak for the right seem to be having too much fun striking their antagonistic, we're-always-right, bully-boy rhetorical poses to even address the problem. They're too busy barking in defense of what appear to them to be unjustified criticisms of the current administration (those of them that aren't demonstrably lying) to see what real damage the current environment of suspicion and uncertainty might do, and to see that this environment currently receives a lot more fuel from the improprieties (circumstantial and real) of the administration, and from their own rhetoric than it does from any terrorist threat. To the degree those on the left contribute to this, it is equally indefensible.

Republicans, however, are currently in power. It is incumbent upon those in office to be above the suspicion of abuse of power. The current administration rarely even makes gestures in this direction, and few voices on the right have shown any active will to hold this administration to any kind of meaningful standard, even out of a sense of political self-preservation.

My own opinion is that the minimum that should be done is for the administration to disallow use of any of the current generation of electronic voting machines -- the machines raise too many questions, and the current atmosphere is too volatile for their use to be justified. I am certainly no expert on the conduct of elections, but I'm sure there are other steps that could be taken to help restore the appearance of propriety. And it would be all the better if these steps required the efforts of both sides.

The ideal of fair and free elections is one of the least controversial principles in American culture. What should we be doing? Nobody wants to see real instability in the U.S. Why should there not be more effort to ensure that our elections are above reproach?

[kat]

I said "in their eyes."
In their eyes, as knowing a few of these "eyes" and taking it straight from the horses mouth. Those eyes don't see themselves as nulling and voiding the United States Elections.


They are not being invited to merely learn and offer insight. The call for oversight went far beyond such benign purpose. They are being invited...because we agreed to invite them, along with all other member countries...at the Paris Summit.....in 1990..over 14 years ago, long before the Gore/Bush fiasco.



Question: Are they going to oversee the elections for every polling station, or a RANDOM sample of polling stations? Yes or no? It hasn't even been decided that they WOULD OBSERVE. Although it's being reported as a done deal..it's NOT..they will decide...when the team arrives..in September. At that time it is better known how many, where and how. Also, they are NOT overseeing, they are observing. Small difference perhaps to you..but an important one. I don't care what the MEDIA is saying..or what the DEM"S are declaring..this is the way it is. Check with the OCSE. I gave you the link to the Paris Summit agreements..I'm sure you can figure out where to go from there!

The fact that a third party is overseeing an election could very well influence how the voting process takes place. It is imperative that oversight be administered fairly and across the political spectrum, not isolated to those areas where subjective analysis has determined that oversight is needed. Observing...not overseeing....we have people and organizations observing our elections all the time....


You are trying to water down their involvement to the point where they are completely uninvolved. But you are not wanting them overseeing our elections simply so that we can "learn." NO, I'm not trying to "water down" anything. There's nothing to water down at this moment..except for an agreement to offer an invitation..an invitation.. Because at this point that is all there is.

btw that same invitation has also been offered by independent states to observe their own election processes...before it was offered by the federal government..as is the right of those independent states.




All this time we have heard how horrid the election process was in 2000, and oversight is absolutely necessary or the democratic process is in serious jeapordy. Now we are told that our democratic process is strong and that the OCSE is just here to comment on how the elections proceeded. Ivan compares the US to Iraq. amp posts articles that (clumsily) make the US out to be Haiti. But everything is really okay, and the OCSE are just bystanders and witnesses, nothing more. Well, really I don't care what Amp or Ivan or even the DNC is saying or crying or declaring...if anything Bush one upped them by offering up his invitation to the OCSE as the equivelent of the U.N. overseeing elections.

As for the Paris Summit, I don't care what we signed. If we were foolish to allow foreigners to influence our national elections when we signed the Summit, then we were foolish. They haven't been here before, so obviously it is up to our discretion to invite them in. So don't invite them, is all I am saying. well, they have been here before. They have been invited in years past and have decided not to come. I think it's more foolish to allow foreigners like soro's to actually influence our elections by throwing tons of money at them...far more worthy of outbursts then inviting the OCSE t0 come and observe elections .

The Supreme Court may have something to say about this someday. Only if it is illegal..or unconstitutional..and since OCSE mandates do not allow it to break the law of the countries it observes..not likely.

[JohnDubYa]

What happens, however, when a large country, generally viewed as stronghold of democratic governance, gives even the impression that its procedures might have been violated on a large scale for ideological purposes, and under the cover of a technology that allows no clear access to the evidence that would either confirm or allay suspicion?

Let the citizens of THAT country worry about it.

The situation in the U.S. right now is that we have an administration that achieved power in a fashion that left questions concerning it's legitimacy under anything other than a shallow and formulaic reading of U.S. law (i.e. the strict forms necessary for transfer of power were effected, but the decision making process had a lot of arguably dodgy bits), that has demonstrable connections to large corporations that range from the suggestively slimy (Halliburton) to the indefensibly corrupt (Enron)...

This thread concerns the elections of 2000 and 2004. If you want to post a diatribe of your dislike for Bush (I would call him George W., but I hardly know him -- snicker), why not post it in another thread? Otherwise, you just muck up the conversation.

[JohnDubYa]

In their eyes, as knowing a few of these "eyes" and taking it straight from the horses mouth. Those eyes don't see themselves as nulling and voiding the United States Elections.

Well, not now. But if they find what they think are improprities...


They are being invited...because we agreed to invite them, along with all other member countries...at the Paris Summit.....in 1990..over 14 years ago, long before the Gore/Bush fiasco.

Why THIS election? Was that agreed in advance? If I missed this point, then I will admit it.


It hasn't even been decided that they WOULD OBSERVE. Although it's being reported as a done deal..it's NOT..they will decide...when the team arrives..in September.

So how can you support their observance when you don't even know at this time whether their observance will be applied uniformly across the political spectrum? To ensure a fair election, that would seem to be a crucial element in determining whether or not I would support such observance.



My quote: The fact that a third party is overseeing an election could very well influence how the voting process takes place. It is imperative that oversight be administered fairly and across the political spectrum, not isolated to those areas where subjective analysis has determined that oversight is needed.

Observing or overseeing notwithstanding, do you agree with my statement? I have posted this opinion many times, and so far no one seems to agree or refute. I am interested in seeing your opinion.




btw that same invitation has also been offered by independent states to observe their own election processes...before it was offered by the federal government..as is the right of those independent states.

That doesn't make it a good idea.

[kat]

Well, not now. But if they find what they think are improprities... I think you're misunderstanding what their mission would be. Again, theres a difference in the OCSE observing the elections of a country with a strong and longstanding democracy, in fact one of the very best democracies with far better representation then the Euro's have.... (Which, despite the crying and hand wringing of the democrats..Is the opinion of the election observers that I have spoke with.) and the supervising of the elections in NEW and BARELY given birth to democracies.



Why THIS election? Was that agreed in advance? If I missed this point, then I will admit it. because..you are assuming that due to it's being reported and announced this time that it is the first time..it is not. The OCSE was even invited to observe the 2000 election... as well as previous elections!




So how can you support their observance when you don't even know at this time whether their observance will be applied uniformly across the political spectrum? To ensure a fair election, that would seem to be a crucial element in determining whether or not I would support such observance. maybe because I know a little more about the how and the why due to my discussion with those who observe..but also maybe because I also realize that they wouldn't be here to "ensure" they would be here to observe. They "ensure" elections in countries that do not have a strong democratic system in place...that are first time democracies..with first or nearly first elections..those are places that need to be "ensured".





Observing or overseeing notwithstanding, do you agree with my statement? I have posted this opinion many times, and so far no one seems to agree or refute. I am interested in seeing your opinion. IF..and this is the key word IF..the mission was to oversee...and ensure..then I would agree..but that IS NOT the case. It is to observe..and then to learn..to share..and maybe..even suggest better methods such as I mentioned above..with the issue of mechanical punch.

[russ_watters]

I think so considering the sudden, mystical distrust of UN observers. I have never heard these objections about UN observers until now. I absolutely do find this to be a double standard. Where did I say I didn't trust them? I trust them just fine - I just don't want them here. Your percieved double-standard is a misunderstanding of my point of view. Presumably the observers would report violations such as those that allegedly took place in Florida when blacks were denied their constitutional rights. I'm not sure of the exact legal mechanism that would come into play given wide spread or significant fraud, but the word of the observers clearly would not be the final say. In a worst case the final judgement would come from the Surpeme Court. In other words, a sticky situation with no real resolution, just like in 2000? Indeed, if UN observers had been present in 2000, would anything have changed? So where is the benefit? And again, how many hundreds of thousands of observers will be here to monitor every polling station...? And if not every polling station, who gets to pick where they go?Russ, others- Electoral observation is done in many different countries including well established democracies. It is becoming more of a habit and of interest to observe and be observed. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that. But I don't want them here. Maybe its just old-fashioned belligernt isolationism....naa, there's more to it than that. Its the same reason we're not in the world court: When you're the king of the mountain, everyone wants to take their shot at you. The observers could do a fine job - but you know the world community loved the 2000 election crap: more ammo for global politics. I think that it's important to show the world that even the United States is willing to open itself up to monitoring, it gives others less of an excuse to not be open to it as well. Reasonable, except (as with Ivan's statement) that that assumes we have the same electoral issues as Iraq. We don't. Observing...not overseeing....we have people and organizations observing our elections all the time.... Presumably these observers will at some point offer an opinion....Just so I do not draw incorrect inferences from this post, let me ask you 1 or 2 questions? Are you against international election oversight in all countries, or only in the U.S? If you are not against oversight in other countries, then I have a second question: How would your statements here be any less relevant to any other countriy? Like I said to Ivan: the US isn't Iraq.The situation in the U.S. right now is that we have an administration that achieved power in a fashion that left questions concerning it's legitimacy under anything other than a shallow and formulaic reading of U.S. law Conspiracy theory knows no party lines: had the decision been made in the opposite direction, conservatives would be the ones making up the conspiracy theories. This does not mean that the US needs international help to avoid having the same situation happen again. What happens, however, when a large country, generally viewed as stronghold of democratic governance, gives even the impression that its procedures might have been violated on a large scale for ideological purposes, and under the cover of a technology that allows no clear access to the evidence that would either confirm or allay suspicion? Here's that belligerent isolationism again: I don't care what the world community (specifically the UN itself) thinks. The UN has demonstrated, on virtually every opportunity, that it is inept at making positive changes in the world. Again, theres a difference in the OCSE observing the elections of a country with a strong and longstanding democracy, in fact one of the very best democracies with far better representation then the Euro's have.... (Which, despite the crying and hand wringing of the democrats..Is the opinion of the election observers that I have spoke with.) and the supervising of the elections in NEW and BARELY given birth to democracies. So again - if that's all they are going to be here for, why even have them here at all? I'm hearing a lot of re-assurance that there won't be any bad effects - but again: what possible good can come from this? The only answer I have heard to this question is 'it'll help world opinion of the US.' I don't consider that a compelling reason to do it.

[plover]

btw that same invitation has also been offered by independent states to observe their own election processes...before it was offered by the federal government..as is the right of those independent states.
I just want to make sure I understand your wording: by "independent states" you mean individual states within the U.S., yes?

[plover]

russ_watters and JohnDubYa:
C'mon guys, you don't have to read the long post if you don't want to, but if you're going to comment on something, you should at least read enough of it to know what the argument actually is. Both of your comments give the impression that you only read the two paragraphs you quoted -- a theory I much prefer to one implying that you actually did read the whole thing, as in that case you either completely misunderstood me, which strains credulity as you both read better than that, or you chose to misrepresent my argument, which seems unlikely as I have no reason to believe either of you to be intellectually dishonest.

(Oh, and if you do read it, interpreting my post as a narrow defense of international observers would, of course, just be silly... :tongue2: )This thread concerns the elections of 2000 and 2004. If you want to post a diatribe of your dislike for Bush (I would call him George W., but I hardly know him -- snicker), why not post it in another thread? Otherwise, you just muck up the conversation.I'm not giving a diatribe against Bush, I'm giving the context for my point. There are a lot of people who believe these allegations, there are a lot of people who don't, whether you or I believe them is irrelevant to the argument; even whether there really is evidence to support either side is irrelevant. What is relevant is the degree of antagonism between the two camps, and where that antagonism might lead come November.Conspiracy theory knows no party lines: had the decision been made in the opposite direction, conservatives would be the ones making up the conspiracy theories. This does not mean that the US needs international help to avoid having the same situation happen again.The point I'm making would apply equally to any other administration at the same pass. A refusal to deal with the tension within the country with anything other than obfuscation and hubris would be dangerous for any party. While I can be accused of taking pot shots at right-wing journalism, I don't see my overall point as a partisan issue. My choice of outcome is deduced from the actions of the administration -- other administrations, of whatever stripe, might do the same, or some other equally awful thing. An administration, again of whatever stripe, that could be trusted not to do something stupid, would most likely never have allowed the situation to reach the stage we're at to begin with.I think that it's important to show the world that even the United States is willing to open itself up to monitoring, it gives others less of an excuse to not be open to it as well.Reasonable, except (as with Ivan's statement) that that assumes we have the same electoral issues as Iraq. We don't.kat's statement is a general principle, it doesn't require the assumption we have any electoral problems, let alone the same ones as Iraq. (Yes, I know that doesn't mean you have any greater approval for it... :wink: )

[Ivan Seeking]

Where did I say I didn't trust them? I trust them just fine - I just don't want them here. Your percieved double-standard is a misunderstanding of my point of view.

Fair enough. I guess I was speaking to JW more than you with that statement. How then do you feel that we should address the apparent failure of the US election process? How do we address the loss of faith expressed by many?

It seems pretty clear to me that the winner take all system is the problem. If the popular vote determined the winner then local corruption would have a much smaller impact on the results. As it stands now, corruption in a few counties, in a swing state like Florida, can change the results for the entire nation.

[russ_watters]

russ_watters and JohnDubYa:
C'mon guys, you don't have to read the long post if you don't want to, but if you're going to comment on something, you should at least read enough of it to know what the argument actually is. Both of your comments give the impression that you only read the two paragraphs you quoted I'll be honest - I did only skim your post and that's all that caught my eye. I've read it all now. The point I'm making would apply equally to any other administration at the same pass. I know. That was my point: If the tables had been turned, we'd still be in exactly the same situation we are today regarding the electoral process.

The rest of your post, plover, seemed to be saying that appearance=reality (in politics) and we should strive to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I agree on both points (in general). Votors, by and large, are swayed by appearances: but not me. I want reality. But in either case, I don't see how international observers will help that.

Something else caught my eye though: My own opinion is that the minimum that should be done is for the administration to disallow use of any of the current generation of electronic voting machines -- the machines raise too many questions, and the current atmosphere is too volatile for their use to be justified. I am certainly no expert on the conduct of elections, but I'm sure there are other steps that could be taken to help restore the appearance of propriety. What!? Electronic machines have been used in many places in the country for upwards of 20 years and there security/accuracy has never been in question. The newest crop add computerization, but there isn't any real problem with them: only perception. And in this case, the perception is being pushed for the sake of obfuscation: had there been electronic balloting in Florida, there would have been no opportunity for Gore to drag-out his challenge to the election. No hanging chads = no opportunity for obfuscation and the Democrats want to be able to challenge the election. They want to increase the possibility of error. They want to increase the appearance of impropriety.

People do crazy things because of flawed perceptions: my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together, then take separate planes because of the flawed perception that airplanes are dangerous. A lot of people have that perception. That's their problem, not mine.

This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.

[edit:continue rant] This is now and always has been my problem with the Democratic party. It has always seemed to me that the Dems are the appearances party. They do things that sound good, feel good, give the perception of being good - but whether those things are, actually good is irrelevant. Its no wonder the Democratic party is still led by Bill Clinton: govern by opinion poll and if it feels good, do it: Smoke pot, get your rocks off with an intern while on the phone conducting national business, lob a few cruise missiles (at most) in response to an attack on our country, but good God, don't ever actually get your hands dirty. Damn, hippies piss me off.

[/rant]

[russ_watters]

How then do you feel that we should address the apparent failure of the US election process? How do we address the loss of faith expressed by many? As should be apparent from my rant, the way to fix the problems is to fix the problems! Isn't that how things are supposed to work? Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out. Or are perceptions really more important than reality?

In any case, observers don't fix problems. We already know what the problems are, right? Hanging chads, difficulty with military balloting were the main issues in 2000. Having an observer tell us that would be redundant. The solution to those problems: both of those are easily correctible with electronic voting.

The purged votors list and the possibility of polling-place tampering may be tougher, but they are still correctible. First off, the list needs to be in the open and there needs to be an appeals process: send everyone on the list a letter and give them a chance to respond. It really shouldn't be that hard to make an accurate list of all the convicted felons in the state. Polling place tampering could probably be fixed with a video camera: when people know they are on film, their behavior magically improves. It seems pretty clear to me that the winner take all system is the problem. If the popular vote determined the winner then local corruption would have a much smaller impact on the results. As it stands now, corruption in a few counties, in a swing state like Florida, can change the results for the entire nation. That would decrease the chance of a statistical tie, but I consider the logic of our founding fathers to be sound on this issue. I think the electoral college should stay.

Anyway, I still am not seeing solutions from Democrats here. With every post, you guys are strengthening my perception that Democrats aren't interested in fixing problems, only affecting perceptions. Do you guys have solutions or not? Can observers have real positive impact or not?

[Prometheus]

Anyway, I still am not seeing solutions from Democrats here.
Who are you calling Democrats? Those who support observers?

Can observers have real positive impact or not?
There are other forms of government in the world where voting takes place. Feedback from people with similar experience from a different perspective certainly has the potential to be of value.

Anyway, I still am not seeing solutions from Democrats here. With every post, you guys are strengthening my perception that Democrats aren't interested in fixing problems, only affecting perceptions.
I get the distinction impression that you are afraid of what the observers will say. Do you really think that only Democrats were upset by the unfortunate manner in which the election was decided in 2000?

As should be apparent from my rant, the way to fix the problems is to fix the problems! Isn't that how things are supposed to work? Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out. Or are perceptions really more important than reality?

In any case, observers don't fix problems. We already know what the problems are, right? Hanging chads, difficulty with military balloting were the main issues in 2000. Having an observer tell us that would be redundant. The solution to those problems: both of those are easily correctible with electronic voting.

The purged votors list and the possibility of polling-place tampering may be tougher, but they are still correctible. First off, the list needs to be in the open and there needs to be an appeals process: send everyone on the list a letter and give them a chance to respond. It really shouldn't be that hard to make an accurate list of all the convicted felons in the state. Polling place tampering could probably be fixed with a video camera: when people know they are on film, their behavior magically improves. That would decrease the chance of a statistical tie, but I consider the logic of our founding fathers to be sound on this issue. I think the electoral college should stay.

I didn't realize that you are the expert on voting procedures, such that you are able to identify and provide clear solutions to every single problem that exists. Why do we need professional observers when we have you? Where were you when we needed you in 2000?

[russ_watters]

Who are you calling Democrats? Those who support observers? Yes - by and large, the democrats here seem to be in favor of the observers. If you're not a Democrat, fine - do you have a real benefit you see? There are other forms of government in the world where voting takes place. Feedback from people with similar experience from a different perspective certainly has the potential to be of value. Is that the purpose of these observers? I thought the purpose was to look for flaws in our process. Perhaps an international conference of election officials would be a better way to discuss the various electoral processes of different countries. I get the distinction impression that you are afraid of what the observers will say. Do you really think that only Democrats were upset by the unfortunate manner in which the election was decided in 2000? As you should be able to see in my last couple of posts, I was upset by the flaws that manifested themselves in the last election and I suggested ways to fix them. Sending for observers does nothing to fix the problems we already know exist. I didn't realize that you are the expert on voting procedures, such that you are able to identify and provide clear solutions to every single problem that exists. Why do we need professional observers when we have you? Where were you when we needed you in 2000? Indeed - it seems I'm the only one here suggesting solutions. But hey, that's the way politics seems to work these days: Dems complain and Repubs work on solutions. I'm still waiting for someone else to post a possible solution - heck, I don't even care if its a good solution - I just want to see that I'm not the only one here making an effort to think about solutions.

C'mon guys:

-How does inviting a UN observer constitute a solution to the hanging chads problem?
-How does inviting a UN observer fix the felons list?
-How does inviting a UN observer help ensure absentee ballots are properly cast?
-How does inviting a UN observer help keep dead Democrats from voting?

[Prometheus]

But hey, that's the way politics seems to work these days: Dems complain and Repubs work on solutions. I'm still waiting for someone else to post a possible solution - heck, I don't even care if its a good solution - I just want to see that I'm not the only one here making an effort to think about solutions.
You say that you want suggestions for solutions, even if not good suggestions. However, you reject the subject of this thread as not being a possible solution, even if not a good solution.

This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.

I find it odd that you call this absurd. You propose all of your wonderful solutions. Outside of this forum, what is the chance that any of your proposals will have any more impact on the rest of the world than this post of mine? All of your claims of wanting to do something, moreso than the "Democrats" in this forum, yet for all of your ranting (as you styled it) your suggestions to this forum contribute nothing practical to the solution. Yet, you consider it absurd. I think that your rant does more for appearances than bringing about practical change in the country.

"Republican" proposals, as you call your proposals, seem to me like superficial attempts to patch some of the techincal glitches of the problem. This is useful, but not only type of problem. There is a systemic problem as well. When one person wins by 50 votes, when there is a margin of error of 600,000, then the election is a statistical tie. The behavior of Florida politicians after the incident showed great partisonship, in my opinion. There seemed to be no guidelines that made their actions overtly illegal. Then, the supreme court overstepped its bounds, in my opinion, by butting in. I would like to see a better procedure for handling statistical ties.

[JohnDubYa]

I get the feeling that those who favor the oversight don't reallly know what is going to take place. They don't know how the oversight is going to be administered (both Russ and I have asked multiple times with no response). They don't know what can be done if any improprieties are "found." They can't even seem to agree on whether the "observation" is benign with little influence on the election process, or oversight with the power to enforce proper election methods.

As for the latter point, student evaluations are one example of mere observation, not oversight. But they do have the power to influence faculty hiring decisions. Any faculty that singles out one classroom for evaluation and not others has made a conscious, subjective decision that could create an unfair situation for the instructor.

[Prometheus]

I get the feeling that those who favor the oversight don't reallly know what is going to take place. They don't know how the oversight is going to be administered (both Russ and I have asked multiple times with no response). They don't know what can be done if any improprieties are "found." They can't even seem to agree on whether the "observation" is benign with little influence on the election process, or oversight with the power to enforce proper election methods.
I think that you are correct. I also think that those who favor oversight don't really know what is going to take place if there is no oversight. I think that this holds true for those who oppose oversight.

I get the feeling that those who supported the war in Iraq had no idea what would take place, other than an overall feeling of the value of the action. In your opinion, should the war have been avoided because of this uncertainty, or should we have jumped into the unknown as we did, without absolute knowledge? You didn't support the war, did you, without really knowing all of the ramifications? How could you, and yet be against the notion here? After all, the potential for harm here is far less than the potential for harm in the war.

[JohnDubYa]

In your opinion, should the war have been avoided because of this uncertainty, or should we have jumped into the unknown as we did, without absolute knowledge?

The last time I looked, we knew damn well that Saddam (good friend of mine, so I call him by his first name) was murdering hundreds of thousands, that sanctions were killing people every day, and that he was ignoring UN resolutions. We also knew that removing Saddam would put an end to his killing people every day, to ignoring UN resolutions, and the sanctions. There was little mystery in it for me.

[plover]

I'll be honest - I did only skim your post and that's all that caught my eye. I've read it all now.
Thanks for taking the time.
I know. That was my point: If the tables had been turned, we'd still be in exactly the same situation we are today regarding the electoral process.
I know it was your point. The implication of your comment seemed to be that it wasn't mine. I was just clarifying my position.
The rest of your post, plover, seemed to be saying that appearance=reality (in politics) and we should strive to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I agree on both points (in general).
These (more or less) are assumptions used in the argument, but are not the main point. The central idea is that the current set of appearances are more dangerously divisive than anything in recent memory, and that this is, in and of itself, a problem that needs addressing.

The problems in 2000, compunded by the perception that the attempts to fix them are politically compromised, make the issues surrounding voting procedures a likely flashpoint.
Votors, by and large, are swayed by appearances: but not me. I want reality.
I'm definitely in favor of reality too (when it's available :wink: ). But be careful with that word "reality": perceptions are not "more important than reality", they're simply a part of reality. In other words, one of things that's real is perceptions; perceptions are real enough to have real world consequences. If you've never been bitten in the *** by other people's perceptions, then you are one statistically freaky dude... :wink:

I expect it is usually the case that "Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out", and the sooner there's a real solution the better. However, there is the matter of timing. If the U.S. becomes seriously destabilized before "the perceptions work themselves out", then those who allow it to happen have the blood on their hands.

The current administration treats this problem with cavalier arrogance. As noted, there has already been a case where use of the new voting machines has led to an appearance of impropriety which was not properly resolved. Do you really want to see that repeated across the nation in a high stakes election? (At least the problem led California to cease using the machines.)

Voting, in a sense, is the ultimate national security issue: without fair and safe voting, the U.S. as we conceive it, ceases to exist. Voting machines need to be designed with the failure and error rates engineers use for any other application that people's lives depend on. Human error should be minimized, yes, but this is data that can be accumulated in a gross physical form, viewable by the human eye, which is still the standard for the interpretation of static visually accessible data.

When you complain about hanging chads, are you just arguing for a cleaner system? Or are you also ignoring the evidence that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts?

Given the problems that have been seen how would I design a voting system? Off the top of my head, here's some points that seem needed:
Touch screens to make ballots easy to use and to solve language difficulties.
Mechanically punched cards to prevent the whole chad problem.
Larger holes punched in the cards to make checking them easier for voters.
Some non-electronic means to allow voters to easily check that the card correctly reflects their choices. Election areas should be designed to make this step hard to skip without a concious decision.
Districts should have at least two different card reading machines, made by two different companies.
Balloting machines and card reading machines must be built by different companies to independently established standards.
Machine vetting must be independent of either type of machine manufacturer.
No companies, company officers, or board members involved in this process may make political contributions.
Those running for political office must divest themselves of all ties to such companies.

All of this is just the musing of someone with no real expertise. I imagine some of the ideas are silly or overkill. But the point is, this is an arena where both the mechanism and perceptions count a great deal, and both areas must be addressed. Unfortunately, I've heard nothing to convince me that the mechanical issues are being addressed well (if you can point me to any information at a source I'm likely to take seriously, i.e. not the Heritage Foundation or some such, I'd be interested to see it), and as I've been saying, the approach to the appearances could hardly be worse.

The right wing press, far more often than not, also just adds fuel to the fire. Their response to 2000 is usually something like "We won, and Democrats are a bunch of whiny losers." which, as you may guess, does little to help the problem, especially as it reads any attempt to correct the problem as an attempt to retroactively alter what happened in 2000. The problem with 2000 was the fact of the controversy, and lack of a means to settle it with fairness, much more than the specific outcome.

It is sad that you, yourself, are providing an example of this problem by a rant that seems to have little to do with my point. The impression it gives is that anyone who expresses liberal views, but doesn't phrase things in a way that exactly suits you, is ok to caricature, whether you know that you're reading them correctly or not.
But in either case, I don't see how international observers will help that.
As I said, I don't know enough to have a decided opinion on this. I incline toward giving the idea the benefit of the doubt, as it has been a useful tool in other situations. But then, I'm not a belligerent isolationist... :wink:
What!? Electronic machines have been used in many places in the country for upwards of 20 years and there security/accuracy has never been in question.
Interesting -- I was not aware of that. But how is it relevant if the current models are the problem?
The newest crop add computerization, but there isn't any real problem with them: only perception.
You're an expert in computer security, and you've tested them? What do you base this on?
And in this case, the perception is being pushed for the sake of obfuscation:
You're losing me here. You appear to be wandering off into partisan land...
had there been electronic balloting in Florida, there would have been no opportunity for Gore to drag-out his challenge to the election.
While I'm sure this a finely honed interpretation, there are others.
No hanging chads = no opportunity for obfuscation
No paper trail = no meaningful checks of fairness. And when did I ever say that chads or obfuscation were a good idea?
and the Democrats want to be able to challenge the election. They want to increase the possibility of error. They want to increase the appearance of impropriety.
What was it you said about conspiracy theories?
People do crazy things because of flawed perceptions: my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together, then take separate planes because of the flawed perception that airplanes are dangerous. A lot of people have that perception. That's their problem, not mine.
Not a good analogy. The whole point of what I'm saying is that is a case where people's misperceptions may end up affecting you.
This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.
Let's see. I suppose I have to assume that I'm being included as part of "you guys", this means that you've made some kind of deduction that I don't actually want to fix the problems... Hmmm... I'll write this one off as temporary insanity...
[edit:continue rant] This is now and always has been my problem with the Democratic party.
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic party? Sorry. :redface: (No really, it's just the phrasing. And besides, you said you were ranting here so I don't have to give rational responses... :tongue2:)
It has always seemed to me that the Dems are the appearances party. They do things that sound good, feel good, give the perception of being good - but whether those things are, actually good is irrelevant.
That's ok, I've always thought of the GOP as the appearances party. :biggrin: As long as they can get things to appear ok to the voters so that they won't be held accountable, then it doesn't matter who actually gets hurt by what they do.
Its no wonder the Democratic party is still led by Bill Clinton: govern by opinion poll and if it feels good, do it: Smoke pot, get your rocks off with an intern while on the phone conducting national business, lob a few cruise missiles (at most) in response to an attack on our country, but good God, don't ever actually get your hands dirty.
Sit and read children's books while the U.S. is under attack and the World Trade Center is in flames...
Damn, hippies piss me off.
You say that like it's a bad thing... :biggrin:
[/rant]
So to conclude:

Would it be better if voters stuck to facts in making their decisions? I expect so. But any quick glance at scientific history reveals that even people who care about factual evidence will disagree on what constitutes evidence.

And if you know for sure which of your opinions are based on fact and which based on appearance, then congratulations, you're the first person ever... :rolleyes:

[russ_watters]

You say that you want suggestions for solutions, even if not good suggestions. However, you reject the subject of this thread as not being a possible solution, even if not a good solution. The subject of this thread is not a solution because it doesn't do anything to change the problems I listed. Unless you can tell me how it addresses them... (I've asked a good half dozen times by now and still nothing) I find it odd that you call this absurd. You propose all of your wonderful solutions. Outside of this forum, what is the chance that any of your proposals will have any more impact on the rest of the world than this post of mine? Well, certainly my solutions would have more of an impact than your post. Unless you want to post some solutions... All of your claims of wanting to do something, moreso than the "Democrats" in this forum, yet for all of your ranting (as you styled it) your suggestions to this forum contribute nothing practical to the solution. I suggested real actions that will have an effect. If you don't think they will have much of an effect, fine: Propose your own solutions."Republican" proposals, as you call your proposals, seem to me like superficial attempts to patch some of the techincal glitches of the problem. Fine. Propose your own solutions. I would like to see a better procedure for handling statistical ties.Fine. Propose your own solutions.When you complain about hanging chads, are you just arguing for a cleaner system? Or are you also ignoring the evidence that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts? I'd like to see some evidence of that.All of this is just the musing of someone with no real expertise. But, thank you anyway! Finally after 3 pages, someone else has proposed some solutions! For the purpose of this thread, I don't care if your solutions will or won't work - and I don't care if you think mine will or won't work. The point is, your proposals above and my proposals in previous posts, specifically address specific faults in the system. That's what solutions do. Observers, on the other hand, aren't a solution. Observers may suggest a solution or point out a problem, but isn't that redundant? The problems have been beaten to death. We know what they are. Instead of observing them happen again, they should have been fixed already.

[kat]

Nothing is wrong with that. But I don't want them here. Maybe its just old-fashioned belligernt isolationism....naa, there's more to it than that. Its the same reason we're not in the world court: When you're the king of the mountain, everyone wants to take their shot at you. The observers could do a fine job - but you know the world community loved the 2000 election crap: more ammo for global politics.
The "world community" will take it's shots with or without observers. The fact of the matter is, the observers have a good healthy love and respect of democracy and know where the strength in and for democracy eminates from. Every observer I have spoken with, from the EU to the UN and the OCSE repeatedly speaks of the United States being the leader in Democracy, not only in our methods within our country (although it's been noted that our electorial system maybe somewhat outdated and could be improved upon) but also in our support of Democracy and voting rights outside of our country. These people don't want to bite the hand that feedst them. Without the U.S. strength push for Democracy aorund the world..they don't really have any big dog that gives a ****. Really, I don't care what the media is shouting, we all know that is more a source of disinformation. That is not the goal or intent of any of the observers that I am familiar with.

Reasonable, except (as with Ivan's statement) that that assumes we have the same electoral issues as Iraq. We don't.
No, it doesn't. I've repeatedly pointed out the difference between observing and supervising. Also, you'll note that I said "monitoring". I do think that we can afford to open ourselves up to "monitoring" but that is not what observing is. Small difference in meaning, but important nonetheless.

Presumably these observers will at some point offer an opinion.... They will offer a statement. That statement may include ideas on improvement and also comment on strengths. They will also may take ideas with them that may be applied to other countries. The agreement for this invitation was made long before the issue of the 2000 election.

Like I said to Ivan: the US isn't Iraq. Conspiracy theory knows no party lines: had the decision been made in the opposite direction, conservatives would be the ones making up the conspiracy theories. Conservatives are still making up conspiracy theories... The fact of the matter is that the OCSE's mission is being reported as the equivelent of a U.N. Supervisory team, it is NOT the same. In fact, if you read the reports...the only people who are suggesting that it is ARE the Dem's and the media. All reports by the OCSE and the state dept. are not suggesting it is the same. It makes me wonder why the Dems are so quick to allow an observeration team to replace the suggested monitoring team. Coudl it be that crooked Dem voting practices would equally be at risk?!! :rolleyes:

This does not mean that the US needs international help to avoid having the same situation happen again. That's not their mission. The OCSE is not being sent to help avoid any situation. They are coming to observe...as they did in both France and Spain, as they will in other Democracies. As any party or person in this country has a right to do..even foreigners..we have a RIGHT to observe. They can not interfere, nor can they break our election laws. Check the laws out, and you will see what their limitations are. They are limited by those laws....

Here's that belligerent isolationism again: I don't care what the world community (specifically the UN itself) thinks. The UN has demonstrated, on virtually every opportunity, that it is inept at making positive changes in the world. So again - if that's all they are going to be here for, why even have them here at all? This is not the U.N., it's membership is limited to democratic nations...I suggest you familiarize yourself with the organization.

I'm hearing a lot of re-assurance that there won't be any bad effects - but again: what possible good can come from this? The only answer I have heard to this question is 'it'll help world opinion of the US.' I don't consider that a compelling reason to do it. I pointed out the good that could come from it, and I think it went beyond world opinion of the U.S. The greatest benefit is to strengthen democracy, the knowledge of what works best, what doesn't...sharing that knowledge...A goal of the OCSE is to strengthen democracy...and spread democracy...around the world. Making a sham of the U.S. elections and undermining democracy is not how the OCSE operates, historically or practically.

[kat]

I just want to make sure I understand your wording: by "independent states" you mean individual states within the U.S., yes?
Yes, that is what I meant.

[russ_watters]

That's not their mission. The OCSE is not being sent to help avoid any situation. They are coming to observe... Kat, from the article: Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers. That certainly implies to me that they were invited to help prevent the same issues we had in 2000 from happening again. Further, others in this thread have implied that the observers are a good idea because they might help prevent some of the 2000 problems from happening again.

My point from the beginning is that if they are only "observers," then their presence here is at best, pointless. If they are only "observers," then their presence here does nothing to help fix the issues from the 2000 election. This is not the U.N., it's membership is limited to democratic nations...I suggest you familiarize yourself with the organization. My mistake - there are apparently two separate issues here. The initial request for monitoring was to the UN and it was rejected. That morphed into the OSCE request. But, same issue: is this supposed to help ensure fair elections or not? Some Democrats seem to think so: "I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

[kat]

Russ- What do you consider to be the negative results of the last time the OCSE observed that would suggest we shouldn't have invited them to observe again?

[kat]

Kat, from the article: That certainly implies to me that they were invited to help prevent the same issues we had in 2000 from happening again. Further, others in this thread have implied that the observers are a good idea because they might help prevent some of the 2000 problems from happening again.

My point from the beginning is that if they are only "observers," then their presence here is at best, pointless. If they are only "observers," then their presence here does nothing to help fix the issues from the 2000 election.

Well, I think if you re-read what I have said...and you read not what the Dem's are saying but the Paris agreement, what the statehouse is saying and what the OCSE is saying your question should be...why are the Dem's misrepresenting the intent of the invitation, and why are they suggesting the invitation was given as a result of the 2000 election when....an invitation has been given for elections before 2000?

[kat]

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted." Well, again...they arent monitors..and have not said they were. Why are the Dem's misrepresenting this? and secondly...they're suggesting that the invitation was in response to their request for U.N. supervision...which is not the same as observation....BUT the agreement to invite them for elections...was made in 1990 AND the invitation has been offered consistently since shortly after the 1990 agreement. There's some political posturing going on that is not representing the intent of the invitations. Bush may have used the ongoing invitation as a way of usurping the power of the Dem's call for the U.N. supervision (again, not the same as observation), but are the Dem's misrepresenting their mission to save face? or? I don't know...but evidently it's worked as the Dem's on this board seem to feel that the OCSE's presence same as having a U.N. team of supervisors. Although, I feel that even in a supervisory position the OCSE is far better qualified.

[russ_watters]

(sorry about my editing practices - my last post wasn't finished when you started replying) Russ- What do you consider to be the negative results of the last time the OCSE observed that would suggest we shouldn't have invited them to observe again? Cute - kat, my position was/is that "no negative results" does not equal a positive result. I have never considered 'it probably won't hurt' to be a compelling reason to do anything. Well, I think if you re-read what I have said...and you read not what the Dem's are saying but the Paris agreement, what the statehouse is saying and what the OCSE is saying your question should be...why are the Dem's misrepresenting the intent of the invitation, and why are they suggesting the invitation was given as a result of the 2000 election when....an invitation has been given for elections before 2000? Fair enough - and good question. Perhaps that should be the focus of this thread. Then again, doesn't the opportunity for politicizing the observer's job constitute a negative result...?

[kat]

(sorry about my editing practices - my last post wasn't finished when you started replying) Cute - kat, my position was/is that "no negative results" does not equal a positive result. I have never considered 'it probably won't hurt' to be a compelling reason to do anything. Are you familiar with the results at all? positive or negative?

Fair enough - and good question. Perhaps that should be the focus of this thread. Then again, doesn't the opportunity for politicizing the observer's job constitute a negative result...? I think the opportunity for politicizing exist with or without the invitation therefor the invitation is not the basis for the negative result. I think the greater issue is why are people who believe themselves to be informed buying into the politicizing instead of becoming informed?

[russ_watters]

Are you familiar with the results at all? positive or negative?
No, I'm not.

Thinking about this more, and in fairness to you, I need to amend my objection: Though I'm still not sure why they would be here, if they are invited in fulfillment of a treaty obligation and this year's invitation is consistent with past invitations, I have no obection.

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

[kat]

Thinking about this more, and in fairness to you, I need to amend my objection: Though I'm still not sure why they would be here, if they are invited in fulfillment of a treaty obligation and this year's invitation is consistent with past invitations, I have no obection.

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.
Thank you, and I agree!

[JohnDubYa]

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

Yes, this has really muddied the issue for everyone concerned. Unfortunately, I think some are hailing the invitation for "oversight" as evidence that the 2000 election results were incorrect.

[amp]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

[kat]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?
It's fact that elections have problems, and there is always room for improvement. It is NOT fact that the invitation given to the OCSE was a result of "improprieties" in the 2000 election.

[amp]

Nor did I say that, Kat. It is known for a fact that even after the fiasco with the felons list in Florida.... They tried to do it again ...in secret at that!!!. Its possibly only because of a court order the conspiracy (if you try the same illegality more than once thats pre-meditated) was uncovered and scrubbed(?)

[BobG]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

Your post is a little unclear on how this was an impropriety.

First, the 57,700 is a little misleading. Felons were prohibited from voting by legally passed state laws.

Conflicting with state law is a constitutional requirement to honor legal rulings of other states. Of the 57,000+ felons, 2837 had their voting rights restored (or never taken away) by the state in which they committed their felony. Florida was legally bound to honor those voting rights regardless of their own laws regarding felons.

The method in which Florida allowed felons from other states to 'regain' their voting rights is the issue you're talking about. Since the felons had their voting rights before they moved to Florida, they should not have had to do anything to 'regain' their voting rights.

And Florida was guilty as charged.

Rather than let it stand, it chose an alternate method of 'regaining' voting rights, which was equally in violation of the constitution.

For what it's worth, even 2837 felons denied their voting rights might have been enough to make a difference in the 2000 election. Considering the percentage of ex-felons with voting rights who do vote (around 30%) and their voting tendencies, a Democratic candidate would have been likely to pick up an extra 700 votes.

Considering the inconsistency with which each voting precinct applied State policies on expunging voter lists and restoring voter rights (as applicable) the 700 would be far from a firm number. It was most likely significantly less than that.

[amp]

Actually, Mr. Palast found that 94,000 voters had their names removed of which 91,000 were errorneous, most were black a predominately democratic voting block. Strangely enough in the same list there were hardly any hispanics, a largely republican voting block due to the Cuban population that hates Castro and votes predominately republican. Using the same standard to max the list there should have been a lot more on the list.

[amp]

The list was comprised of voters who had never commited a felony - there was even one a person on the list with a date of conviction that was in future so far that the felony had yet to happen..!

[BobG]

Incorrectly putting non-felons on the list, especially with such a strange coincidental demographic grouping, is a valid issue. It's hard not to at least suspect a little intent behind numbers like those.

As I said, it was a little hard to figure out exactly the point you were trying to make, originally.

I saw the issue of 'other state felons' as frustration on the part of Florida (but, illegal regardless of their feelings). The constitution requires honoring legal rulings from other states, but, in this case, you had a zero sum game where both of the legal rulings from two separate states could not be honored, since they were in direct opposition to each other. Florida was put in the position of having to allow the rights of other states to trump their own, even within their own state borders.

[kat]

Actually, Mr. Palast found that 94,000 voters had their names removed of which 91,000 were errorneous, most were black a predominately democratic voting block. Strangely enough in the same list there were hardly any hispanics, a largely republican voting block due to the Cuban population that hates Castro and votes predominately republican. Using the same standard to max the list there should have been a lot more on the list.
I think this was debated and disproved in another thread. Including the fictional majority of hispanics are cuban line. Cuban's only make up 34% of the hispanic population in Florida and even at that...you cannot make the assumption that past criminals vote republican.

[amp]

If you kindly show me, I'd be much obliged. My links:http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2

Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.

No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.

link: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2

Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Most of the voters (such as "David Butler," (1); a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate and race matched - or nearly matched - one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. DBT, which frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. In Harris?s elections office files, next to DBT?s sophisticated verification plan, there is a hand-written note: ?DON?T NEED.?


Thomas Alvin Cooper (2), twenty-eight, was flagged because of a crime for which he will be convicted in the year 2007.

The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it.


Wallace McDonald (5), sixty-four, lost his right to vote in 2000, though his sole run-in with the law was a misdemeanor in 1959. (He fell asleep on a bus-stop bench.) Of the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified."

SILENCE OF THE MEDIA LAMBS: THE ELECTION STORY NEVER TOLD
www.tompaine.com
Thursday May 24, 2001
Investigative reporting about voting rights violations in the US have been page one news---in Britain.

A transcript of an interview - http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2

[kat]

If you kindly show me, I'd be much obliged. Do you trust the US government to run an honest election? (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=36669)

Here's the thread. That might be a good place for you to post your above information...as none of what you have posted tells us why you would misrepresent the intention of the invitation to the OCSE to observe U.S. Elections.

[amp]

I did use the word 'overseers' in my first post on the thread, sorry, I meant 'observers' as you see if you read to the end of the reply. I didn't even mention the OCSE, Jimmy Carter would be fine and any org. he trusts would be fine with me.

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, I cannot imagine why anyone would think Jimmy Carter would be biased. :rofl:

[russ_watters]

amp, as I said in the other threa, unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence. Now if you have some proof, I'd love to hear it. But I won't take that guy's word for it that 91,000 of 94,000 were erroneously purged.

And Jimmy Carter is perhaps the most politically active ex-president we've ever had (Clinton is active, but he hasn't been out of office for long). As long as his actions remain politically motivated, he makes an awful observer.

[kat]

I'm pretty sure that U.S. election law allows for observers. period. Anyone has a right to observe....with or without and invitation. Jimmy Carter stated that he would not have his organization observe because it might be seen as trying to influence the election. As far as I know he did not need an invitation or permission to have them observe. As for supervising, I think it becomes a little more difficult as our laws prevent anyone other then those appointed to actively participate in the election process.

[plover]

amp, as I said in the other threa, unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence.
Taken out of context, this statement is not particularly controversial. However, as applied to Palast it seems a curious dismissal for someone who has received awards for his investigative reports for the BBC, who has written for the Washington Post, and who is considered a credible public advocate by the U.S. government's Commission on Civil Rights. It is good, however, that you've detached the word "foreign" which appeared in your first use (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=285607&postcount=23) of the tediously tendentious phrase "tabloid reporter hawking a book", as for one thing he's an American (even if he works mostly for British news agencies), and for another, the idea that the nationality of a journalist might a priori reflect on the credibility of their reporting is pretty far outside any standard of objectivity I can think of. Given that he's currently being sued by Mario Cuomo, it's not necessarily even easy to argue that Palast is narrowly partisan. (Note: Until I googled this stuff a few minutes ago, I didn't know Palast from a hole in the wall.)

Should this be taken as an example of how well you usually check sources?

Who do you consider credible? How well do you check their sources?

As for "unsubstantiated assertions", the pieces at the website that's been linked to are listed as "columns", not investigative pieces. For the purposes of this discussion that is unfortunate, but can't be considered an indictment of his methods. My googling indicated that at least some of his BBC pieces can be viewed on-line.

[amp]

Russ, unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence. Now if you have some proof

UK members I'm asking you is the 'Guardian' a Tabloid. Mr. Palast is an investigative reporter. I'm not asking you to buy or read his book but I'm certain he substantiates his assertions therein. You will note that the 94000 number comes from the company (DBT) that produced the 'lists' for Florida. Russ, you call that unfactual? And 94000 were purged, 91000 should not have been on the list! Thank you Plover. On 'Like it is' Mr. Palast said he can't work in the US, because basically they (the US media conglomorates)don't want us the citizens to know whats going on.

[JohnDubYa]

One way to examine the credibilty of a reporter is to examine his works for obvious bias. Do the following sound objective?

"Heaven help us when President Bush and Congress tell us that they are going to 'help' us vote."

People who have axes to grind are less trustworthy when it comes to reporting facts. That doesn't necessarily make Palast a liar, but can those that lie on the opposite side of the political spectrum ever trust him?

[amp]

JDY, "Heaven help us when President Bush and Congress tell us that they are going to 'help' us vote."

In the context in which it is written it sounds more like a warning or an alert for us to watch out.

[russ_watters]

It is good, however, that you've detached the word "foreign" which appeared in your first use (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=285607&postcount=23) of the tediously tendentious phrase "tabloid reporter hawking a book", as for one thing he's an American (even if he works mostly for British news agencies), and for another, the idea that the nationality of a journalist might a priori reflect on the credibility of their reporting is pretty far outside any standard of objectivity I can think of. Given that he's currently being sued by Mario Cuomo, it's not necessarily even easy to argue that Palast is narrowly partisan. (Note: Until I googled this stuff a few minutes ago, I didn't know Palast from a hole in the wall.)
Should I let go the fact that you cited something I didn't say in that quote and then proceeded to argue against it? Well - the main reason I would use the word "foreign" in this context is that the British mainstream press (with a few exceptions) is generally regarded as a tabloid press here. I submit that that is the reason he chooses to work there: the style of reporting better matches his own than what he finds in the US. That's different from the implication for the credibility of a "foreign" reporter coming from, say Iran...
Should this be taken as an example of how well you usually check sources?

Who do you consider credible? How well do you check their sources? Well, the first and most obvious way is to check if they have or cite sources.

First off, a closer inspection of your link (I mised this before), the asertion you and amp are attributing to Palast did not even come from him. Read this quote again: Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.[emphasis added] ...and now look at the byline for who "we" and "I" are.

Palast's assertion from the book (if accurately reported) is: According to his[Palast's] investigation, up to 57,000 persons, the majority of them African American and Democrats, had their voting rights removed. Notice the conspicuous lack of any charge that the purge was erroneous or illegal.

So, my opinion of Palast just went up a notch, my opinion of your (and amps, and my) reading comprehension went down a notch, and my judgement that the 91k number is BS is intact.

[russ_watters]

Mr. Palast is an investigative reporter. I'm not asking you to buy or read his book but I'm certain he substantiates his assertions therein. What makes you so sure? Heck, now I'm not even sure what those assertions are - but the fact that no mainstream press is reporting anywhere near what you have claimed makes me doubt your assertions: Corroboration is the second criteria by which I judge a report. You will note that the 94000 number comes from the company (DBT) that produced the 'lists' for Florida. Did it? Someone stating that it did does not constitute evidence. Evidence is a photocopy of the document where they got the number. That said, I'm not questioning that number (that's just a lesson in what evidence is). The full quote from this Isaac Hernandez guy is: Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent. Note the period between the two numbers: though he may have gotten the 94,000 number from DBT, he is not saying he got the 91,000 from them: he's looking for you to assume it. That's the number that needs to be substantiated and that tactic is straight out of Michael Moore's book.
Russ, you call that unfactual? And 94000 were purged, 91000 should not have been on the list! [quote] Based on the word of Isaac Hernandez? Jeez, amp, do you have any standards for credibility besides 'I like what he said'? [quote] On 'Like it is' Mr. Palast said he can't work in the US, because basically they (the US media conglomorates)don't want us the citizens to know whats going on. Yes, that certainly fits with my judgement that he works in England because he's a tabloid reporter. But in any case, this isn't about him - its about this Mr. Hernandez.

Anyway, I don't speak Spanish: does anyone know what "EL MUNDO" means?

[amp]

It means 'the world'(el - the , mundo - world). Note the period between the two numbers: though he may have gotten the 94,000 number from DBT, he is not saying he got the 91,000 from them.
The 91000 came from the finding that only 4000 people on the list were convicted felons Your right I didn't research this personally, but in light of the agreement that this little farce happened at all, lends enormous credence to what has been written. The fact that it took a court order to expose it leads even a simplistic Sherlock Holmes fan such as myself to deduce that the entire affair is SHADY, illegal I'll let the lawyers handle that though I suspect so.

And as I said he works in England because the american media isn't too interested in the truth when it comes to this admin. In fact, the buzz is that if you want to keep working for them you had best muzzle your objectivity and integrity. :frown:

[russ_watters]

Ok, looking more into Mr. Palast, I found THIS (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=2) article. It wasn't written by him, its an inteview of him. But here's a direct quote from him: My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime... So that's where the number of errors came from: he generated it himself. Unless he's really, really good about laying out his methods (so that others can use what he says to check him) in his book (I won't be buying it to find out), he fails both of the credibility critereon I posted earlier: his allegations are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.

Also, from another article on his site: Imagine a cross between Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, if such a beast is possible -- that's Greg Palast. In fact, Moore borrowed a good deal of the information for his bestseller, Stupid White Men, from the reports of Greg Palast. Yeah, that's the impression I get too. But unlike the writer of that article, I don't consider that a good thing.

[amp]

When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t. He didn’t even bother to ask how the machines were set up. This is the kind of reporting we get in America. In Britain, this story ran 3 weeks after the election, when Gore was still in race. It was in the papers and on TV. In the US, it was seven months before the Washington Post ran it, and then it was only a partial version. After the election, Gadsden County replaced its voting commissioner. In 2002 they only lost one in 500 votes. So you can say blacks in Gadsden got smarter in one way – they elected a black elections chief. This was in the link you posted Russ.
My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime...
So that's where the number of errors came from: he generated it himself.

Russ, the errors are there to be found, even you could "carefully" go thru the list and being a perfectionist probably find more.

[plover]

Should I let go the fact that you cited something I didn't say in that quote and then proceeded to argue against it?
At least you figured this one out later -- even if that didn't lead you to remove the unwarranted accusation.
Well - the main reason I would use the word "foreign" in this context is that the British mainstream press (with a few exceptions) is generally regarded as a tabloid press here. I submit that that is the reason he chooses to work there: the style of reporting better matches his own than what he finds in the US.
Ok, first we have an unsubstantiated characterization of the British press. We then use this to deduce that someone about whom no relevant facts were ascertained must a) work for a news organ of dubious repute, and b) must himself work to dubious standards. And from all this we can ascribe motives to this individual, while simultaneously toting in a new implication that of course if this person were competent he would work in the U.S.

Um... wow.....


And, um.... yeah, that's just.... er, wow....


That's different from the implication for the credibility of a "foreign" reporter coming from, say Iran...How is this suppose to follow from what went before? You have some greater reason to trust the overall Iranian press than the British press? How is this relevant to the case of a given individual? First you apply a statistical argument to a point where it's not warranted, and now you're backing that up with a statement where the statistical argument doesn't even seem to hold?

Well, the first and most obvious way is to check if they have or cite sources.
See the last paragraph of my previous post...
First off, a closer inspection of your link (I mised this before), the asertion you and amp are attributing to Palast did not even come from him.
You gotta stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't directly attributed any statement to Palast or offered any explicit support. I merely noted that your dismissal exhibited more partisanship than fact-checking.
Yes, that certainly fits with my judgement that he works in England because he's a tabloid reporter.
Only if you equate a journalist disagreeing with your assessment of the U.S. media with being a tabloid reporter.

[russ_watters]

Um... wow.....


And, um.... yeah, that's just.... er, wow.... You should learn from me. Detecting credibility (or lack thereof) really isn't all that hard. It just takes a little common sense.

[russ_watters]

Russ, the errors are there to be found, even you could "carefully" go thru the list and being a perfectionist probably find more. Well, that's great, amp - does that mean you've seen the list, the errors, and the evidence? Please post the list with the errors noted and substantiated and I'll take them into consideration.

[amp]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, thats your right and I respect that. I do not desire to scan thru 94000 names and cross-references to acertain something which better qualified people have all ready done.

Detecting credibility (or lack thereof) really isn't all that hard. It just takes a little common sense. I think Plover has expunged yours.

Ok, first we have an unsubstantiated characterization of the British press. We then use this to deduce that someone about whom no relevant facts were ascertained must a) work for a news organ of dubious repute, and b) must himself work to dubious standards. And from all this we can ascribe motives to this individual, while simultaneously toting in a new implication that of course if this person were competent he would work in the U.S.

[russ_watters]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, thats your right and I respect that. I do not desire to scan thru 94000 names and cross-references to acertain something which better qualified people have all ready done. And there we have it: 'I don't need to see the evidence to believe it.' Sorry, but I do. I don't choose to believe or disbelieve things based on if they sound good to me - I want the evidence. You even say that I wouldn't believe the evidence even if I saw it: even if true, how is that worse than choosing to beleive it without the evidence?

And if his credentials are so good: why doesn't he have a job in the US? Oh wait, I remember now: its all a conspiracy. And with all the self-fulfilling preconceptions that go with it: being rejected by the US press isn't evidence that he's a bad reporter (to you), its evidence that the US press is bad and he's good. Uh huh.

[amp]

Second question first, Its not a conspiracy just fact. He could work for press that dosen't have an agenda slanted in some particular direction, for instance, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't hire him and he owns a large share of the media. I am implying that because he tends to investigate news that brings serious issues to light that those who control the purse strings won't want anything embarrassing to their objectives to get know publicly.

Russ:
: 'I don't need to see the evidence to believe it.'

Nope, I don't need to see the equations of Newton or Albert to believe there is such a thing as gravity. I don't need to see the evidence of Mr. Kay to believe the UN inspectors when they said Saddam didn't have nuclear capability. I don't need to see the evidence (medically speaking) to know I live. (well that particular fact is felt by me.)

The point though is that by the time I heard or read about Mr. Palasts report, what had happened in Florida was public knowledge. :smile:

Which makes it a good idea to have observers.

[russ_watters]

Nope, I don't need to see the equations of Newton or Albert to believe there is such a thing as gravity. Einstein's and Newton's equations are the theory, not the evidence. The evidence is the apple falling on your head. You're reading the scientific method upside-down, which maybe explains your position here...

[amp]

Right, I had it wrong anyway. See how easy that was, I knew someone would set it straight. In this case it was you, Russ. Just so, I know if Mr. Palasts staff had come up with the numbers they came up with erroneously it would have been refuted, perhaps by someone like you. Since it is now public knowledge, the people now know in order not repeat this voter purge they will have to view the election officials conduct under a microscope.

[JohnDubYa]

Just so, I know if Mr. Palasts staff had come up with the numbers they came up with erroneously it would have been refuted, perhaps by someone like you.

Something is true if we are not aware of anyone refuting it? Is that what you are saying?

[amp]

As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency. And furthermore, they are attempting to do it again. That is the main reason such objections are made to having observers moniter this coming election.

[JohnDubYa]

with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency

Exactly what actions did George W. take that would be considered cheating? Or is this just more hyperbole?

[russ_watters]

As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency. If thats true, isn't it surprising that no one (neither Bush's side, nor Kerry's) is making an issue of it? I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal! Where is the call for impeachment? Where is the call for the arrest of the officials responsible?

The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).

[kat]

Exposed: Scandal of double voters (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224449p-192807c.html)

*snips*
Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows.

******

But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

******
The News' investigation also found:


Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party.

[plover]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, thats your right and I respect that.
While I appreciate you finding my points to be compelling enough to serve as support for your own, I must request that you too not put words in my mouth. The statement that Russ "would not consider ... truth [that] doesn't conform to [his] preconceived notions" is not one that I have made.

(I am still waiting for some example of how closely he checks sources he agrees with though... :wink: )

[plover]

The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).
If this is truly what it tells you, then you're amazingly naive, otherwise you're just being disingenuous. Since when have politicians, the media, or the courts been transparent conduits between fact and action? The above statement is on a par with saying that the Republicans do take him seriously, and so endeavor to ensure his voice is not heard. It is not impossible that the situation is as simple as you say, but you have given no evidence that it is, and most real-world situations do not reduce so easily, so reason is not on your side.

Your statements about Palast not working in the U.S. I just find tiresome. For one thing they ignore the fact that, as I stated above, he has worked for mainstream media here, and was considered a credible advocate by a government commission. But even if that were not the case, they exhibit a simplistic xenophobia that, whether or not it accurately reflects your beliefs, does your reputation no honor and your argument no service.

(Caveat delimiting the content of this post omitted in the hope it's not necessary...)

[JohnDubYa]

I already posted an obviously biased and subjective quote by Palast. Does not that indicate a seeming inability to investigate objectively?

[amp]

No John, Plover I apologize, ", Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions." this statement is my opinion from the responses given to you.

I see Kat seized on the Daily news article on a Double Vote scandal but when I post articles from the NY Times about Floridas' election conspiracy I get boo'ed.

Russ Watters: ...I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal!... Aint that right!

Where is the call for impeachment?

There was a petition being circulated calling for Bush to be impeached. Not because of Florida but because he I won't say lied, how about deceived the American people and put our soldiers in harms way in doing so.

This quote explains why there wasn't any call for impeachment over the Florida incident. No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.

This in itself would make it improbable for justice to be served add to that a republican house and senate... well it pretty obvious, for crying out loud :cry:

[kat]

I'm sorry...what was the date that Ashcroft took his position?

and er...com'on the NYT...... Or hadn't you heard the old grey lady has fallen?

[amp]

Yeah, who is more credible the Daily News (tabloid) or the N.Y. Times?

I'm sorry...what was the date that Ashcroft took his position?

I forgive you, lets not let it happen again. :biggrin: :blush: :tongue: :shy: :rofl: :wink:
It was some time after the election, notably when these questions were starting to be raised.

[plover]

and er...com'on the NYT...... Or hadn't you heard the old grey lady has fallen?
How do you conclude that the New York Times is not one of the most credible papers in the U.S.? (which is not the same thing as being perfect...)

If your response is "Jayson Blair", mine is "Stephen Glass". Anyone can make a mistake. Come back when they start making a habit of fraud.

If your answer is "Fox News tells me so!", you probably won't get a response cuz I'll be laughing too hard.... :tongue2:

[As I don't know Kat's actual reasoning, the following may or may not be related to the above.]

My impression is that right-wing people who call the NYT leftist have never read what actual leftists have to say about it. It seems to me they piss off both sides equally, a fairly good sign that there is no consistent bias (which is not the same thing as never being biased).

The right gives the appearance that anyone who publishes stories they disagree with can be labelled "liberal media", and thus lay out a system where "balanced" corresponds to "never saying anything a conservative wouldn't like". Clearly there are those on the left that do the mirror version of this, but (at least as regards leftists in journalism) there are, as a rule, far fewer trying to convince people that media best described as "centrist" are "conservative".

[kat]

Yeah, who is more credible the Daily News (tabloid) or the N.Y. Times?


I forgive you, lets not let it happen again. :biggrin: :blush: :tongue: :shy: :rofl: :wink:
It was some time after the election, notably when these questions were starting to be raised.
The timing would seem to be crucial to your assertion. What was the date? Or don't you know?

[kat]

How do you conclude that the New York Times is not one of the most credible papers in the U.S.? (which is not the same thing as being perfect...)

If your response is "Jayson Blair", mine is "Stephen Glass". Anyone can make a mistake. Come back when they start making a habit of fraud. I find them no longer credible. So, if that's all I have on a story I won't buy it until I review actual documents or research further myself. On serveral occasions I've found their facts to be inaccurate so, therefore I won't assert it as a credible story until I've checked it further. I think that's an intelligent way to approach any media's report. I hope that you also do the same, otherwise you're probably buying a bunch of B.S. without ever realizing it. :wink:

If your answer is "Fox News tells me so!", you probably won't get a response cuz I'll be laughing too hard.... :tongue2: I watched Fox for a short while back in the early 90's when it first aired. I haven't watched it since..in fact I seldom watch tv..many times only an hour or two a month, if that.

[plover]

I find them no longer credible. So, if that's all I have on a story I won't buy it until I review actual documents or research further myself. On serveral occasions I've found their facts to be inaccurate so, therefore I won't assert it as a credible story until I've checked it further. I think that's an intelligent way to approach any media's report.
Fair enough, I suppose. Though this doesn't, in the end, precisely answer the question I asked -- i.e. is the New York Times less credible than other national U.S. newspapers?

I'm not an enthusiastic reader of the NYT (though I imagine my previous post could be read to imply the reverse). I mostly only look there when directed from other sources. As a rule though, it strikes me as a reasonably neutral ground to start discussions from. I've never found any compelling reason to regard it as untrustworthy or consistently biased.

I would be curious to know on what issues you found them to be inaccurate, and why you consider your experience to imply something systematic rather than a statistical fluke. I expect all news sources to make mistakes. Moving a widely accepted source like the NYT from the usual category of "fallible" to "untrustworthy" (or even just "unacceptably inaccurate on a consistent basis concerning issue X") takes fairly strong evidence.

(Oh -- and you're unlikely to hear me contend that avoiding TV should be considered a bad idea... :biggrin: )

[kat]

Plover-I can't say that I've done an in depth comparision study that would allow me to say, honestly, that there is a definative and consistent bias in regards to X.

I will say that because such an overwhelming % of reporters admit to being liberal and so vehemently against Bush bundled with outragiously partisian behavior by reporters in at least one situation that I know of, in a venue that they would normally take care to remain non-partisian......that it would be negligent to not take care and review what's being reported to make sure that it's not tainted by...at best a subconscious bias and at worst a purposeful bias(I would suspect the reasoning to...be..for the good of man kind) .

As for whether the NYT is less credible....
I think there was a time that the integrity of the NYT was at a very high level. I don't feel that's the case. I think it's been on a down hill slide for some time now. So I think it's less credible then the the paper that was lovingly and respectably called the "Grey Lady" but I don't find it LESS credible then other news sources as I don't feel ANY of them are overwhelmingly credible and all stories should be approached with the attitude of a doubtful thomas.

The fall of the grand lady makes me a bit bitter...I personally feel it's really and I think we should all be outraged.

[amp]

Unfortunately, most papers have fallen short of impartial objectivity but the Times has from my POV provided views from BOTH sides of the fence. I usually read just the editorial pages and the op-eds and I see names like Brooks, Safire, Krugman, O'Dowd which sort of balances things out as you read perspectives from Reps and Dems.

[JohnDubYa]

To those on the Left, "both sides of the fence" means "heavily Left" and "sometimes moderate." The political leanings of a newspaper are not dictated by the op-eds, but rather the reporting of events.

[plover]

To those on the Left, "both sides of the fence" means "heavily Left" and "sometimes moderate."
*sigh* See post #102 above.
The political leanings of a newspaper are not dictated by the op-eds, but rather the reporting of events.
Well, the two sections can certainly have different slants, c.f. The Wall Street Journal, but characterizing a paper solely by either can mislead.

[kat]

Unfortunately, most papers have fallen short of impartial objectivity but the Times has from my POV provided views from BOTH sides of the fence. I usually read just the editorial pages and the op-eds and I see names like Brooks, Safire, Krugman, O'Dowd which sort of balances things out as you read perspectives from Reps and Dems.

Well, it would seem that Times "public editor" or Ombudsman would disagree...

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004, Sunday


OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.


I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B 63