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.

 

[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 ... ?

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 occurring 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.

 

[member 5645]

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 occurring 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?

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 relevant 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.

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?