"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."
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?
It's about time someone took the US elections seriously, since the public won't.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 of Presidency ) I wouldn't mind if a bunch of obsevers came to moniter.
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!
Should other countries ever have their elections monitored? Or are you proposing a double standard?
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?
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 ... ?
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.
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.
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.
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?
False premise. You assume that I think outside observers are going to be fair in their treatment of those voting for Bush and Kerry.
You are relying on the fallacy of limited options.
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?
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.
It's a WASTE OF MONEY.
I already explained. When observers point out irregularities (real or imagined), it clouds the entire election. What do you at that point?
Objective? How do you determine whether or not they are truly objective? How do you train someone to be objective?
A weak refutation if I ever heard one.
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
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.
Again, I refer you to the Greg Palast investigation in Florida.
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?
Separate names with a comma.