Europeans To Monitor American Voters

shonagon53 writes "The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy. But since the Florida 2000 fiasco, things have changed. Europe's famous Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will now be monitoring the U.S. elections. The institution normally monitors elections in third world countries in transition, and in crisis areas or regions where civil wars have destabilized the political process. In november, the OSCE will be monitoring local and state elections in Kazakhstan, Skopje, Eastern Congo, Ouagadougou and... the United States. As the BBC reports, for some Americans this comes as a humiliation; others see it as a necessity, since they have lost trust in the American election process."

Comments

Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[GodHead]

Really gives me pride in the US.

And to those who say Dem's would do the same thing.. they haven't yet.

Re:mistakes

[Xabraxas]

Even with Gore in office, there is little guarantee that we wouldn't be in some international mess of some kind. Anyone that thinks otherwise is probably a fool.

That is quite a foolish comment in itself. There is no gaurantee that things would be different but it is just as foolish to claim it is impossible.

Re:mistakes

[Timex]

I'm interested to see what's going to happen in this election, but not in the same way that some may think.

I'm worried that illegal immigrants will be voting because of the efforts of "fringe Democrats". (By "fringe", I mean people who have such a severe hatred for President Bush because of his successful run in 2000 that they will stop at nothing to make sure that anyone else wins in 2004. These are the same people that have questioned the right of Nader to be on the ballot in several states, in the hope that the misplaced Nader-ites will vote for Kerry.)

I'm worried that some people would vote more than once, such as those that might be registered in more than one place because of loopholes in the system.

I hope that the OSCE is able to put those worries to rest.

I'm not a big fan of public polls, but looking at the numbers as they stand today, President Bush looks like he'll enjoy a decisive victory, unless he trips on his own feet in the coming weeks. We'll see how the numbers play out after the debates.

If President Bush DOES win decisively (and it's a distinct possibility, no matter what the Democrats say), it'll be interesting to see what the Whine du Jour will be for the next four years. (The current favorites are "Let's not elect him this time, either" and "Defeat President-Select Bush". Heh. Sore losers. That would be like me complaining that Clinton shouldn't have one his first term, because the MAJORITY didn't want him; they just couldn't decide between Bush-the-Elder and Perot. Of course, I know that Clinton won fairly, as the system dictates, so I didn't whine. I didn't like it, but I didn't whine.)

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[1u3hr]

Not a nitpick, just another example of insufferable American ignorance and arrogance.

This is an attack on our sovereignty!!

[StormKrow]

The OSCE has no business sticking their nose into our affairs. While they perform an important role in 3rd world countries, WE are not a third world country, and the need for moderation simply does not exist in this nation. Even if by some inconceivable event, the Communist Party candidate were elected, because of the system of checks and balances in our government, the country would continue functioning with very little noticeable change. (Aside from the president making budget allowances for grey hats, and little red books.) We simply do not need to have our government validated by a foreign nation in order for it to be legal in the eyes of the world, and if it ever came down to it, our population is still able to own firearms...the people still have the ability for self moderation.....remember the old saying, The only true democracy is the one in which the people are able to take up arms and defend themselves from their own government. While every other "civilized" nation hands over its personal weapons, the American People are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, without outside influence. (In fact the last time I checked, it was the US that had to keep things in check on their continent, not once, but TWICE.) Keep your nose out of our country, OSCE!!!

Re:mistakes

[jbarr]

We know our election system is broken. It failed us 4 years ago.

Please stop disseminating FUD. The US Presidential election system is not broken and it did not fail us 4 years ago. The problem was a technological one that produced questionable ballots. If you are disappointed by the results, it's either because "your" candidate didn't win or you don't understand the significance of the Electoral College. The fact that a US president can get elected by a minority of the popular vote is NOT the result of a broken system, but the result of the Electoral College system. If we change to a straight popular vote system, then cities and states with small populations will lose their voice to large population areas which will become the sole target of future campaigning. While there certainly may be a better way to conduct an election, (for example, modifying the way Electors are chosen and assigned) it's still the "fairest" method available to maintain consistent representation.

Additionally, to put the "deciding votes" into perspective, Florida's Electors were only the "deciding votes" because of the timing of how the returns were reported and the timing of the "questionable" ballot issues. If, for example, another state had been "held up" by some balloting issue, then Florida, despite its issues, may not have been the "actual" deciding vote. It was a matter of timing. To "blame" Florida is unfounded because it's the "total" of the votes that counts, not how an individual state votes. I know that may sound contradictory, but it's also the most objective, non-partisan way to view it...