Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Yes: I expect that any errors are honest ones

    7 vote(s)
  2. No: I expect election fraud in some places in the US

    16 vote(s)
  3. I expect significant but honest errors

    0 vote(s)
  4. Uncertain or otherwise: Please explain

    2 vote(s)
  1. Jul 25, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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! :rofl:

    From another post, but it applies well here.

    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?
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2004
  4. Jul 25, 2004 #3
    Did Republicans ask for UN or National Guard help when the dead voted for LBJ in his run for governor?
  5. Jul 25, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Agreed. I am very much opposed to the idea.
  6. Jul 25, 2004 #5
    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.

    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.
  7. Jul 25, 2004 #6
    first problem is the US goverment 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
  8. Jul 25, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Democrats in New Mexico have a sordid history of vote fraud, by the way.
  9. Jul 26, 2004 #8

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2004
  10. Jul 26, 2004 #9
    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.!
  11. Jul 26, 2004 #10
    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!! :wink:

    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.
  12. Jul 26, 2004 #11
    Sour grapes are driving this UN voting oversight demand. Those that lost the election desire oversight because such action would be considered an acknowledgement 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.
  13. Jul 26, 2004 #12
    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.
  14. Jul 26, 2004 #13
    I would not.
  15. Jul 26, 2004 #14
    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.
  16. Jul 26, 2004 #15
    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.
  17. Jul 26, 2004 #16
    I don't vote, but I believe the American voting system is pretty good.
  18. Jul 26, 2004 #17
    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.
  19. Jul 26, 2004 #18
    why dont you vote?
  20. Jul 26, 2004 #19


    User Avatar

    I think he may be too young. (?)
  21. Jul 26, 2004 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook