News Do you trust the US government to run an honest election

[Ivan Seeking]

Very late edit: Please make that second option "significant election fraud"; meaning enough to affect the outcome of the election. Any votes already made in error should be clarified and I will post the correction here. I sure don't want to start any polling fraud conspiracy theories!



From another post, but it applies well here.

We recently had a very uncharacteristic show of outrage on the floor of congress by a black congresswoman from Florida. She accused Bush of a coup d'état. Not so well known but widely reported at the time, blacks in Florida claimed that they were prevented from voting by “Republican thugs”. This fact was lost in the counting frenzy. Of course, Florida, Governend by Bush's brother, was also the swing state that got Bush elected.

The congresswoman was demanding that the UN monitor our election. Rightfully so I think.

Maybe I'm mostly alone on this one but I'm afraid the problem may be just that bad. IMO, honestly people, I'm not inflating things here just to start a fight, I feel there is so much smoke around the Bush dynasty that a fire is nearly certain - I wonder if this congresswoman might not have been well within the bounds of reason. If what the blacks claimed in Florida did happen then this may have thrown a Presidential election. Stop and consider what that would really mean.

So as a follow up question, who here would support a resolution to have the UN monitor the US presidential election this year?

 

[Hurkyl]

Frankly, I get the impression that none of the outcomes of such a resolution would sway many opinions. First off, there's the problem that many would find the very idea an insult. Of course, if USA refuses many would claim something's up. If the UN inspectors don't find any tampering, they were either comprimised, or the US interfered with the investigation. If the UN inspectors find tampering, they're just exacting revenge.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Did Republicans ask for UN or National Guard help when the dead voted for LBJ in his run for governor?

 

[russ_watters]

Frankly, I get the impression that any of the outcomes of such a resolution would sway many opinions. First off, there's the problem that many would find the very idea an insult. Of course, if USA refuses many would claim something's up. If the UN inspectors don't find any tampering, they were either comprimised, or the US interfered with the investigation. If the UN inspectors find tampering, they're just exacting revenge.

Agreed. I am very much opposed to the idea.

 

[Prometheus]

First off, there's the problem that many would find the very idea an insult.

Of course, many would consider it an insult. Unfortunately, many people also feel that fraud was committed in the last election, and that this fraud swayed the course of the election. People who believe this consider the last election an insult.

Of course, if USA refuses many would claim something's up. If the UN inspectors don't find any tampering, they were either comprimised, or the US interfered with the investigation. If the UN inspectors find tampering, they're just exacting revenge.

I find this a poor justification. If the UN did find tampering, what would that mean?

If the UN did not find tampering, perhaps people who feel that the Republicans committed a major act of fraud would be less sure of this feeling.

I wonder why you put such a negative spin on the possible outcomes.

 

[ray b]

first problem is the US government never has run a election
the states are in charge but they all sub out the job to local
county political hacks
perhaps the idea of the feds running a election would be a better idea then the current system as would direct election of our presidents under a one man one vote system

we have had dead voters and many other frauds including a result thrown out by the courts, in a local mayor election in the last few years here in miami fla
:surprise:

 

[Janitor]

Democrats in New Mexico have a sordid history of vote fraud, by the way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An interesting aside: Some may remember that just before Ross Perot dropped out of the the '92 election, he claimed that Republcan thugs ruined his daughters wedding and threatened he and his familiy. I think he actually used the word "thugs". A bit of a coincidence eh?

A quick check produced this as a basic reference to this event.

Discouraged by a reinvigorated Democratic party ticket...as well as Perot's claim that Republican operatives were attempting to disrupt his daughter's wedding, Perot announced his withdrawal from the campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

 

[JohnDubYa]

An interesting aside: Some may remember that just before Ross Perot dropped out of the the '92 election, he claimed that Republcan thugs ruined his daughters wedding and threatened he and his familiy.

Heh. I forgot all about those claims. Perot was certainly a loon. My favorite was the supposed kidnapping attempt the North Vietnamese made on his family. Good stuff, H.!

 

[Shahil]

I actually think that UN monitors should be dispatched during voting. After what Ivan Seeking said and the fact that a whole lot of the world weren't very impressed after the Florida debacle, wouldn't UN monitors be a definite for the elections.

As for the corruption of these monitors, well if we can't trust the UN, who can we trust!

Anyway, on the election procedure - In SA we have a centrally-based IEC (Independent Electoral Commission). Also, even though they're independent, they are audited. They've run 5 elections so far and the biggest problem they had was alleged cheating in rural area of the province I live in (KwaZulu Natal). The case was dropped though meaning that the IEC is doing/did a brilliant job. I'm kinda against the sub-contracting coz it'll mean differences in the voting technique at different locations which I'm against.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sour grapes are driving this UN voting oversight demand. Those that lost the election desire oversight because such action would be considered an acknowledgment that the 2000 elections were somehow rigged.

In other words, this isn't about the 2004 elections at all. Some are still fighting to place an asterisk besides Bush' 2000 victory and this is their latest scheme. They want history books to say "The 2000 election was so badly rigged that in 2004 the US even had to call the United Nations to oversee the elections."

After seeing what happened with the Oil for Food program, I am not sure I trust the UN anyway.

 

[member 5645]

yeah there will be some independent fraud, but nothing on a large scale.
You can't expect anything else in ANY election process of this size, anywhere in the world.

 

[member 5645]

So as a follow up question, who here would support a resolution to have the UN monitor the US presidential election this year?

I would not.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I believe Kofi Annan said last week that no UN monitors will be provided for our presidential election. Thank you Eddie Bernice Johnson D-Texas and ten democrat accomplices.

 

[Shahil]

I believe Kofi Annan said last week that no UN monitors will be provided...

What about EU or AU observers?? I'm not trying to argue that rigging will take place nor am I arguing that I think the 2000 elections were rigged - I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to believe vote rigging will occur, won't bringing in independant observers be the only logical thing to do. It doesn''t matter who wins the elections - the main thing is that it will be fair. That's is, after all, all that matters.

 

[Entropy]

I don't vote, but I believe the American voting system is pretty good.

 

[member 5645]

What about EU or AU observers?? I'm not trying to argue that rigging will take place nor am I arguing that I think the 2000 elections were rigged - I'm just saying that IF there is a reason to believe vote rigging will occur, won't bringing in independant observers be the only logical thing to do. It doesn''t matter who wins the elections - the main thing is that it will be fair. That's is, after all, all that matters.

Why should there be? Fraud will happen in the EU election, the AU election. It happened in the last Indian election. It's impossible to stop it.

Are monitors going to personally handle the entire election, and then be audited in some miraculous manner to stop any fraud? No, of couse not.

 

[member 5645]

I don't vote, but I believe the American voting system is pretty good.

why don't you vote?

 

[kat]

I think he may be too young. (?)

 

[russ_watters]

Why should there be? Fraud will happen in the EU election, the AU election. It happened in the last Indian election. It's impossible to stop it.

Maybe I need to clarify my vote (I voted for the first option). Fraud certainly will occur in small, isolated cases. There are something like half a million election officials and a few will choose to break the law. It can't be stopped.

I answered with the first option as a response to the level of fraud accused in the last election.

 

[JohnDubYa]

First of all, no fraud has been proven. Second, it appears that if any did occur, it was very isolated. What percentage of voters were potentially defrauded, in anyone's estimate?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh. I forgot all about those claims. Perot was certainly a loon. My favorite was the supposed kidnapping attempt the North Vietnamese made on his family. Good stuff, H.!

So you just assume that it never happened? How blindly patriotic of you.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Maybe, but wasn't there also an issue in Wisconsin where voters were voting multiple times? If I recall correctly, Gore benefitted in that situation.

Every election we have situations where someone screws up. The only difference in 2000 was that Florida was one of the last swing-vote states and the voting was incredibly tight.

 

[kcballer21]

I think the notion of a nonpartisan organization monitoring any government activity would be a good idea in theory. The problem would be finding individuals that could really be deemed unbiased. The UN has been shown to have its own agenda on more than one occasion, which is unfortunate.

JohnDubYa First of all, no fraud has been proven. Second, it appears that if any did occur, it was very isolated. What percentage of voters were potentially defrauded, in anyone's estimate?

What percentage is acceptable?

 

[member 5645]

So you just assume that it never happened? How blindly patriotic of you.

ummmm, this is an odd response.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ummmm, this is an odd response.

Not when you consider that blind trust drives many Bush loyalists.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe, but wasn't there also an issue in Wisconsin where voters were voting multiple times? If I recall correctly, Gore benefitted in that situation.

Every election we have situations where someone screws up. The only difference in 2000 was that Florida was one of the last swing-vote states and the voting was incredibly tight.

Clearly the Congresswoman from Florida did not feel that this was just a screw up. If there was a concerted effort to prevent blacks from voting I can definitely see her point. There is a difference between cheating and the forceful overthrow of an election. Not to say that I condone cheating, but small town diehards have probably been stuffing ballot boxes from day one. Intimidation - the loss of the right to vote - would be another thing altogether. No doubt this has gone on in the South in decades passed.

 

[Njorl]

Sour grapes are driving this UN voting oversight demand. Those that lost the election desire oversight because such action would be considered an acknowledgment that the 2000 elections were somehow rigged.

In other words, this isn't about the 2004 elections at all. Some are still fighting to place an asterisk besides Bush' 2000 victory and this is their latest scheme. They want history books to say "The 2000 election was so badly rigged that in 2004 the US even had to call the United Nations to oversee the elections."

After seeing what happened with the Oil for Food program, I am not sure I trust the UN anyway.

You claim to know the motives of other people in this matter? I would think you would be working in Las Vegas at the poker tables with these marvelous mind-reading skills you claim to have.

There has already been one Republican attempt to illegally sway the 2004 Florida election. Republicans attempted to carry out a secret purge of felons from the voter rolls. All felons who served a year or more are supposed to be stricken. That's just fine. However, Governer Jeb Bush fought the disclosure of this list tooth-and-nail. It turns out, many who did not qualify for striking were stricken, also, virtually no Hispanics were on the list. Most Hispanics in Florida are Cuban, and vote Republican.



Just what exactly happened with the "Oil for Food" program? Are you talking about those interesting accusations of bribery that were floated by Ahmed Chalabi, and bought into completely by the right-wing media? Most people have backed off those charges after finding out Chalabi was an Iranian agent. Paul Volcker was put in charge of an investigation, and, miraculously, all of Chalabi's documentary evidence of the corruption vanished.

Njorl

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe I need to clarify my vote (I voted for the first option). Fraud certainly will occur in small, isolated cases. There are something like half a million election officials and a few will choose to break the law. It can't be stopped.

I answered with the first option as a response to the level of fraud accused in the last election.

This is certainly in the spirit of the poll: Do you trust the process. Obviously some isolated cases of fraud will happen. The question is really more one of scale and significance. I could have worded this better, as usual.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There has already been one Republican attempt to illegally sway the 2004 Florida election. Republicans attempted to carry out a secret purge of felons from the voter rolls. All felons who served a year or more are supposed to be stricken. That's just fine. However, Governer Jeb Bush fought the disclosure of this list tooth-and-nail. It turns out, many who did not qualify for striking were stricken, also, virtually no Hispanics were on the list. Most Hispanics in Florida are Cuban, and vote Republican.

Wow! When did this happen? Do you have a link?

 

[JohnDubYa]

There is a difference between cheating and the forceful overthrow of an election. Not to say that I condone cheating, but small town diehards have probably been stuffing ballot boxes from day one.

Sounds like you are saying that cheating is no big deal.

What's the difference if I intimidate you into not voting, or simply stuffing a ballot that negates your vote? Both are illegal and the effect is the same.

 

[JohnDubYa]

So you just assume that it never happened? How blindly patriotic of you.

If anything, you have blindly accepted the word of a loon. What's worse?

The FBI investigated the wedding photo controversy and found nothing. And given H. Ross Perot's frequent delusions of grandeur, we can safely say that no such plot ever occurred.

 

[Njorl]

This has much of the story.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040712/NEWS/407110366

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

This is certainly in the spirit of the poll: Do you trust the process. Obviously some isolated cases of fraud will happen. The question is really more one of scale and significance. I could have worded this better, as usual.

Whether isolated fraud, votor incompetence, or counting errors, the problem in Florida was that all of those issues add up to a statistical tie. In other words, all the sources of error added together were larger than the margin of victory. Our electoral system is not equipped to handle that. A lot was made of the hanging chads - fixing that with electronic machines will eliminate recounts and vote ambiguity, but that's not even half of the problem.

 

[russ_watters]

This has much of the story.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040712/NEWS/407110366

Njorl

How much of the article did you read? It seems to refute your implication of impropriety.

Regarding the oil-for-food program, the only question is the depth of the problem. Do you remember the photos/videos of the warehouses of hoarded food captured in Iraq?

 

[JohnDubYa]

How much of the article did you read? It seems to refute your implication of impropriety.

Exactly my impressions.

 

[Prometheus]

Whether isolated fraud, votor incompetence, or counting errors, the problem in Florida was that all of those issues add up to a statistical tie. In other words, all the sources of error added together were larger than the margin of victory. Our electoral system is not equipped to handle that. A lot was made of the hanging chads - fixing that with electronic machines will eliminate recounts and vote ambiguity, but that's not even half of the problem.

I agree with this. Florida was a statistical tie. Who cares who won by 100 votes, when the margin of error was 600,000?

There was no mechanism in place for how to handle a statistical tie.

Unfortunately, the country wallowed in conflict and poor behavior until the Supreme Court decided to be the biggest jerks of all.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Because they decided against your candidate?

The Supreme Court would have pissed off half the country no matter what they decided.

 

[Shahil]

Maybe, but wasn't there also an issue in Wisconsin where voters were voting multiple times? If I recall correctly, Gore benefitted in that situation.

Every election we have situations where someone screws up. The only difference in 2000 was that Florida was one of the last swing-vote states and the voting was incredibly tight.

Does it matter who benefiited here? The fact is the the elections were NOT free and fair because of the multiple voting. That's the problem. Alongst with other posts here, I'm just sensing some side taking (ie. Democrats/Republicans) Can anybody understand that it's the electoral process, no the result which, I think, should be debated.

Why should there be? Fraud will happen in the EU election, the AU election. It happened in the last Indian election. It's impossible to stop it.

Are monitors going to personally handle the entire election, and then be audited in some miraculous manner to stop any fraud? No, of couse not.
.

Election monitors, as I believe and have seen in my country - are placed in the aforementioned problem areas. If the observers are bribed, well then you got a problem there but, but in most of the cases, they're not and they do stop any voting irregularites. Also, even if ALL but one of the observers are bribed, your election is still free-er and fairer than it woul;d have been without the observers as one of your electoral stations, which was going to have irregularities, was prevented from having problems.

 

[Njorl]

How much of the article did you read? It seems to refute your implication of impropriety.

I read the entire article. It does not even slightly refute the implications. It gives an explanation of how it happened. So? It is always good to have a justification for nefarious activities.

[edited to add] By the way, the ACLU had to sue the state of Florida to get a copy of the list, otherwise this fraud upon the electorate would have been successful.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida.elections/

Regarding the oil-for-food program, the only question is the depth of the problem. Do you remember the photos/videos of the warehouses of hoarded food captured in Iraq?

There was surely corruption. There was always plenty of evidence of the goods that were destined for Iraq going to Syria and Jordan. That is not what is meant by "The Oil for Food Scandal", though. "The oil for food scandal" refers to the apparently fabricated evidence provided by Ahmed Chalabi that a large number of UN and European officials took enormous bribes from Saddam Hussein. As soon as a reputable investigator was sent to inquire, all documentary evidence was mysteriously destroyed by hackers, according to Chalabi. Right-wingers still use this "scandal" to denounce the UN. Considering that later information indicates that Chalabi is an Iranian agent, the motive becomes clear - a weaker UN allows Iran more freedom to develop nuclear weapons.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Election monitors, as I believe and have seen in my country - are placed in the aforementioned problem areas. If the observers are bribed, well then you got a problem there but, but in most of the cases, they're not and they do stop any voting irregularites. Also, even if ALL but one of the observers are bribed, your election is still free-er and fairer than it woul;d have been without the observers as one of your electoral stations, which was going to have irregularities, was prevented from having problems.

How do you know where a problem area is? You don't!

'Free-er and fairer' at the cost of what?? Spending hundreds of millions to arbitrarily place observers around?? The amount of fraud is estimated to be so small that the margin of actual human error is greater than the problem.
The hubbub about florida was/is/and will be overblown by a huge factor.
There were/will be other swing states that are highly contested.

There's no need to bring in outside of observers when there are inherant checks and balances already.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How do you know where a problem area is? You don't!

'Free-er and fairer' at the cost of what?? Spending hundreds of millions to arbitrarily place observers around?? The amount of fraud is estimated to be so small that the margin of actual human error is greater than the problem.
The hubbub about florida was/is/and will be overblown by a huge factor.
There were/will be other swing states that are highly contested.

There's no need to bring in outside of observers when there are inherant checks and balances already.

What about voter confidence? If a significant percentage of voting Americans no longer trust the system then the basis for our democratic process is lost. The perception of significant fraud may be just as significant as fraud itself.

Also, perhaps the inherent checks and balances have failed - I think this was Russ's point.

The amount of fraud is estimated to be so small that the margin of actual human error is greater than the problem.

This ignores the case of strategic fraud; as apparently happened in Florida. Due to the Electoral College, a small level of fraud in a few counties, in a key swing state, can make or break an election. In fact, this strikes me as one of the best reasons I have heard to do away with the winner-take-all system.

 

[russ_watters]

I read the entire article. It does not even slightly refute the implications. It gives an explanation of how it happened. So? It is always good to have a justification for nefarious activities.

This quote was cut between pages:

By looking for Hispanic surnames, the Herald-Tribune found about 1,400 possible Hispanics on the purge list, hidden under other race categories.

That's the newspaper checking on the government's explanation and finding it plausible. So despite what appears to be a reasonable, substantiated explanation, you are assuming without evidence that some sort of conspiracy is at work? The paper doesn't make the accusation, though they quote a couple of Democrats making an implied accusation. And frankly, the Democrats are just as politically motivated on this issue as the Republicans (if you like, the word "nefarious" applies here as well): the Democrats want as many convicted felons voting as possible because as a group, they overwealmingly vote Democrat. By getting lists like this thrown out, they circumvent the law that says convicted felons are not eligible to vote.

No offense, Njorl, but are you ok? Having a bad week? You have, at times, been about the most logical poster in here (whether you agree with me on the politics or not, you have always had my respect), but lately, I'm not seeing it.

 

[member 5645]

What about voter confidence? If a significant percentage of voting Americans no longer trust the system then the basis for our democratic process is lost. The perception of significant fraud may be just as significant as fraud itself.

Well, show me that significantly more people will volunteer to vote, and I will support measures across the board to inact that. However, voter apathy is time and again linked to their ignorance of politics and/or disdain of the candidates. It is not linked to voter confidence, and no where along hte line do I see that any of this points to the need for UN monitors.

 

[Artman]

How come this congresswoman is only bringing this to attention now?

Also, the people don't elect the President. The Electoral College elects the President.

 

[Njorl]

This quote was cut between pages: That's the newspaper checking on the government's explanation and finding it plausible. So despite what appears to be a reasonable, substantiated explanation, you are assuming without evidence that some sort of conspiracy is at work? The paper doesn't make the accusation, though they quote a couple of Democrats making an implied accusation. And frankly, the Democrats are just as politically motivated on this issue as the Republicans (if you like, the word "nefarious" applies here as well): the Democrats want as many convicted felons voting as possible because as a group, they overwealmingly vote Democrat. By getting lists like this thrown out, they circumvent the law that says convicted felons are not eligible to vote.

No offense, Njorl, but are you ok? Having a bad week? You have, at times, been about the most logical poster in here (whether you agree with me on the politics or not, you have always had my respect), but lately, I'm not seeing it.

Even with the 1400 additional names, that makes only 3% of the list hispanic when 17% of the states population is hispanic.

1. There is no doubt that the list would have disenfranchised people unjustly.

2. There is no doubt that the list would have allowed the vote to those who did not deserve it.

3. Any astute and honest political observer would concede that the unjustly disenfranchised group slightly, tend toward voting Democratic, and the group with unwarranted franchise tends to vote Republican very heavily.

4. The Republican caretakers of the list refused to allow the list to be copied and checked until they were forced by a court to do so.

5. The Republican authorities with the power to strike felons from the voter rolls unjustifiably denied the vote to more than 10,000 people in the 2000 presidential election.

6. The governer of the state is the brother of one of the Presidential candidates, the one who will benefit from the errors.

It is certainly not up to the standards of proof required in criminal or even civil law. We are not in court though. This is a matter of public opinion. As a matter of public opinion, I think it is more reasonable to assume ulterior motives than honest mistakes. Once in a while, honest mistakes work against you. That never seems to be the case for Republicans in Florida electoral mechanics.

I largely trust our electoral system. Where I distrust it is in matters where fraud is easy, effective and without repurcussion. All three of those requirements are in place in Florida.

Njorl

 

[kat]

Well, show me that significantly more people will volunteer to vote, and I will support measures across the board to inact that. However, voter apathy is time and again linked to their ignorance of politics and/or disdain of the candidates. It is not linked to voter confidence, and no where along hte line do I see that any of this points to the need for UN monitors.

Of course, his whole proposal is based on the assumption that the U.N. monitors would bring voter confidence. I think he might be granting more faith to the U.N. then many americans do. In fact, I'd almost bet on an absolute rage at the idea coming from many quarters of the american public.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I must have missed it, but are Hispanic criminals likely to vote Republican?

 

[Njorl]

I must have missed it, but are Hispanic criminals likely to vote Republican?

Only in Florida. In Florida, the vast majority of Hispanics are Cuban. Cubans vote Republican at a 60%-80% rate.

Njorl

 

[JohnDubYa]

But what about Hispanic CRIMINALS? Those that have run afoul of the law and incarcerated vote conservatively?