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

mistakes

[dncsky1530]

It's always good to learn from your mistakes, but it's even better to learn from someone elses.

Re:mistakes

[aurispector]

The silly thing is, if these guys find irregularities you know people will blow it sky high and make a huge stink.

Fact is there are irregularities in every election everywhere, favoring both (or all) sides about equally that roughly cancel each other out.
I know people involved in american politics that say that the democratic wards will have errors favoring the dems and vice versa.

The most important thing is that the country survived the 2000 election, that we are still playing by the rules and are TRYING to learn from our mistakes.

Remember democracy is a PROCESS.

Re:mistakes

[devilspgd]

People can talk about Florida all they want. It was a result of outdated technology and a ballot that was confusing to read. Combine that with an elder population that has a difficult time adjusting to electronic voting and you'll get problems that are difficult to solve in the next election.

Having enough ballots would be neat thing to try though...

Re:mistakes

[nihilogos]

Mellow out a bit. Nobody is comparing the US to a dictatorship, you started that on your own.

Your own government is concered about what happened in Florida, particularly about the deregistration of large classes of people. I believe the "Help America Vote" is intended to address that. And when your own government is concerned why is it a suprise that the OSCE is too? After all, the US is a participating state.

Re:mistakes

[MustardSauce]

You're taking this as an insult to America?

It is clear that the election process in Florida in 2000 was substandard to say the least. If it has been fixed objective outside observers can best point this out. If it hasn't, ditto.

Jeb Bush and the Republican Florida Secretary of State cannot perform this service.

Re:mistakes

[Xabraxas]

People can talk about Florida all they want. It was a result of outdated technology and a ballot that was confusing to read. Combine that with an elder population that has a difficult time adjusting to electronic voting and you'll get problems that are difficult to solve in the next election.

Push Polling
Intimidation
Harrassment
Purging the rolls of minorities

These are the reasons that our elections are being monitored. This is not about hanging chads.

However, these problems are a result of people making poor decisions in one state. The other states had no problems and the voting was done fairly and properly. Trying to show the similarities of problems in America and Iraq when it was run by Saddam is irresponsible. That was a country where people's voted did not count. In our country, people after the fact sat down and counted each vote by hand. If it was clear who the person voted for, that candidate got the vote. If it was unclear who they voted for, then the ballot had to be discounted. This is fair! If you can't determine who someone voted for, then they don't get the vote.

Not in the slightest did anything like that happen. First of all, other states have experienced problems with voting. Michigan is already having problems. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable in a democracy.

Again, this is a slap in the face of America to make it look like we have a dictator in office like Iraq had and many other countries still have. That is not the case at all. If you think it is and you hate Bush, then Clinton would have had the same "dictatorship" because he got in office under the same rules. I don't think anyone would consider Clinton a dictator. And I don't think Bush is capable of rising to such a high power. I don't think he's smart enough to do it.

Clinton's clear vicotry and Bush's selection by the Supreme Court are not exactly "under the same rules". There was never any question about Clinton's victory. The process worked the way it was supposed to. Bush's selection was not ordinary and was not played by the same rules at all.

Re:mistakes

[Archie Steel]

Basically, you're saying that since irregularities always happen, one shouldn't try to monitor them and help improve the voting process. I disagree. Transparency in elections is essential to democracy. The process has to be fair and open, and the vote secret (thus free of coercition). The truth is that the 2000 elections were controversial; some monitoring can only help people regaining faith in the electoral process.

Also, since what goes on in the U.S. has a significant impact on what goes on in the rest of the world, the fairness of U.S. elections is an international matter of concern. The U.S. citizenry should only not see this as a humiliation, as they are the one who will benefit from any corrected irregularities. The only people who should be humiliated are those found responsible of those irregularities.

Re:mistakes

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Every presidential election in the 20th century was fraudulent to one extent or another. JFK clearly stole the election from Nixon, and I have little doubt Nixon didn't repay the insult by stealing it from whoever his opponent was.

Gore was just the first to challenge it. I hate Gore, Bush and Kerry equally... so it doesn't really matter who wins (won) I suppose. 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.

Re:mistakes

[Archie Steel]

Actually, supposing there is another controversey (not sure how likely, but for the sake of argument) what makes you think this will help?

We learn from our mistakes, don't we? You're basically arguing that the system is broken and can't be fixed. This is either being pessimistic, barring the possibility of progress in the electoral process, or the result of partisan politics (i.e. you realize that your side profits from voter fraud and thus reject any monitoring that would seek to reduce it).

Like in every other country, they'll report that the "election was rigged" and if anything, stir up even more shit than if they hadn't "monitored" it.

In every other country, really? Actually, could it be because of the simple fact that when there are few irregularities, it doesn't make for good news and therefore it's not as widely reported by the media.

Every year, I hear about something like this, in shitty 3rd world countries whose names I intentionally forget.

Using one's ignorance as an argument. I rest my case.

Do you think that this time, Dubya will just say "well golly gee, you got me... kerry did win after all'?

Should there be any major irregularities that would've tipped the vote over to Kerry, he wouldn't have much of a choice.

Re:mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Not in the slightest did anything like that happen. "

This is an outright lie -- ballots where hand counted multiple times.

Part of the problem was that a political party was trying to game the system (e.g. trying to invalidate military votes) and scare people (e.g. by claiming police harrasment because an empty police car was parked at a voting site - maybe a policeman voting?) to generate higher turnout in future elections.

A bigger part of the problem is ignorance. The elections of 1996 and 2000 used the same rules and Bush was not "selected".

States are responsible for turning in vote counts. Democrats sued to keep Florida from turning in votes by the deadline because they wanted more recounts.

The part of this that was "not ordinary" was a group deciding not to follow the laws.

The problem wasn't that there were different rules; it was that some people didn't want those rules applied in 2000.

Re:mistakes

[Whyte]

No, actually the OSCE were asked by Secretary of State Colin Powell to monitor the election. Furthermore, this isn't the first election in the U.S. they have monitored.

One of the main reasons Mr. Powell made the request is to show public faith in the OSCE. Primarily because DoS wants the OSCE to become more involved in fledgling democracies such as Iraq.

If the U.S. doesn't trust the OSCE enough to provide tertiary monitoring for our own elections, how can we expect anyone to accept OSCE monitoring at our recommendation?

As an American citizen, I truly hope that the OSCE is able to make recommendations to the FEC in order to reduce voter fraud. Such will serve all citizens of this country well.

Re:mistakes

[thephotoman]

That is the telling part. We know our election system is broken. It failed us 4 years ago. While the failure was partially due to technology being confusing, we would also like to make sure that nobody's trying to take advantage of that confusion. We cannot be certain whether the state government in Florida had any role in influencing the outcome of the Elector elections in its state. The main reason for this suspicion is the identity of the people who were in charge of that election: a major candidate's brother, who needed only that state's Elector's votes to win the election and said candidate's state campaign manager. Both of these people had a vested interest in making sure that a particular candidate won. Even if things had gone the other way four years ago, and it was Gore up for re-election, we'd be in the same boat. It's the fact that there's even remotely reasonable suspicion that people were trying to influence the election that has people concerned.

Besides, as a member of the organization in question, one should expect that we also submit to its scrutiny. It makes certain that we are fit to be election watchdogs for the rest of the world as well.

Re:mistakes

[superpulpsicle]

The greatest strength a country can have is publically acknowledging its weakness. For U.S to come out and say "monitor us", that's really something. Though I am still in huge favor of electronic voting from home. But that's a separate story.

Re:mistakes

[quax]

The US certainly survived the 2000 election but also managed to shatter an awful lot of credibility that this is a functioning democratic system.

If you do not count all votes and if a court arbitrarily decides who to put into power you are setting a very bad example especially if the guy whom the victory was awarded to didn't even get the popular vote.

If this was to happen in a 3rd world country monitored by the OECD this result would have been regarded as laughable.

Re:mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

IS our government concerned with what happened in Florida?

Right now, the Republican Party controls, or has a majority, in all three branches of government.

Are they concerned about the intgerity of the democratic process itself, or merely on maintaing the appearance of a "model" democracy?

Re:mistakes

[Stevyn]

That's a good point. I'm not sure why I got modded as a troll, but whatever I don't care. I always felt that the need for the electoral college was to prevent the candidates from only campaigning in large cities where they would get the most bang for their buck. I think that a few hundred years ago that was very important otherwise the people from New York and Philadelphia would be the most represented and people living on farms would never be heard or cared about.

The reason I said we should get rid of that system is because television and the Internet allow candidates' voice to be spread effectively. I live in New Jersey, the most densely populated state, but I've never seen GWB or Kerry come here and campaign. But I don't feel unrepresented, but I do feel it's unfair that my vote counts less than someone's in Nevada or Montana.

Another thing I see fault with the electoral college is that it tells voters to not bother voting if their candidate isn't popular in their state. If I am a republican and I cast my vote in a heavily democratic state, then it doesn't mean anything because the state will go democratic. So people don't bother voting because their vote essentially won't count. I think that is something that hurts voter turnout.

I feel the candidate who gets the most votes should win. In this time, everyone is connected or at least targeted through the Internet and television so I don't feel that their needs are underrepresented.

Re:mistakes

[Keebler71]

Clinton's clear vicotry and Bush's selection by the Supreme Court are not exactly "under the same rules". There was never any question about Clinton's victory. The process worked the way it was supposed to. Bush's selection was not ordinary and was not played by the same rules at all.

This stuff blows my mind... that there are still people out there who cling to the notion that Bush was "selected" and not elected. As for "not played by the same rules at all"... please cite your reference as to exactly which rule was not followed. Start with the Constitution and work down. Good luck.

Re:mistakes

[SillyNickName4me]

> I see this as an insult to America. They're basically saying our process of electing a president is a sham and that we're incapable of being democratic.

They, and for that matter, your own government and many of your citizens, say that there have been problems with elections in the USA. THat does in no way mean 'we' think it is a dictatorship now.

Just in case, there is no point whatsoever in monitoribng elections in a dictatorship, you know the outcome beforehand.

It is very usefull to monitor elections when they have a chance of being relatively fair but also have a chance on some problems.

On another note, I would rather like outside observers at our local elections (I'm from the Netherlands btw, so a European). Eventho we do not have a history of problems with elections, having someone from the outside look over your shoulder is a great help in keeping it that way.

Re:mistakes

[Awptimus Prime]

Wow, how much Shawn Hannity do you listen to?

Re:mistakes

[Moofie]

How is it fair that the vote of somebody in Wyoming worth three to four times the vote of somebody in California?

Shouldn't the President represent the largest possible number of Americans?

Of course, getting rid of the electoral college is only the teeniest step. We really need new ways of scoring elections.

Re:mistakes

[thephotoman]

It'd be different if today's Republican party was Lincoln's party. It just isn't.

I'll give you the primary Democratic responsibility for the build-up in Vietnam. Ike knew better than to send too many men in there, but only a force that would theoretically be able to encourage stability. Once Kennedy and Johnson got their hands on it, though, things did really begin to go to Hell.

The Republicans don't overestimate their voters' intelligence either. They know that appeals to racism and religous fundamentalism work to garner support among the poor and undereducated.

The election system is broken. When people with a potential vested interest in the outcome of an election are charged with administering said election, things have gone wrong. Kathrine Harris should not have been allowed to participate in the Bush campaign due to her responsibilities as Secretary of State in Florida. Jeb Bush only did what was expected of him (though I still don't really like him), and I have a slightly harder time with laying much blame at his feet. He was in a sticky situation from the beginning, and if I had been in the same place as he was, I would probably have done the same things he did at the time.

Re:mistakes

[Macgruder]

It's a compromise set forth by the founding fathers.

Without the Electoral college, the rural states would be at the mercy of the populated states. New York and California could effectively dictate to the rest of the nation.

What's good for California is not nessecarily good for South Dakota.

It's not perfect, but it does the job.

The 'one voter, one vote' theory only works when all the states have like populations.

Re:mistakes

[Moofie]

That's what the Senate is for. The President should not be favoring ANY state. He represents the COUNTRY.

Re:mistakes

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Who was it that said they don't care who wins the election, as long as they get to choose the candidates?

And why, do you think that a congress made solely of democrats and republicans will make it any easier for a non-democrat, non-republican to have a fair chance at winning office?

Or do you think that we don't need some serious 3rd/4th/5th party representation to fix things?

Re:mistakes

[TGK]

That's a very obvious and not terribly helpful comment. Thank you.

What the grandparent is trying to get across is the idea that when the US has an internal crisis over its own electoral process and then awards the office to the guy who got fewer votes it looks, to the rest of the world, as something of a quandary.

The US electoral system is weird, hands down, and among democracies (republics if you prefer) it is considered somewhat antiquated and strange. We're talking about a system that fundamentally distrusts the masses, leaving the decision to the politically elite (this was the framers intent with the college) which has been beaten into a vague semblance of a plebiscite, though with questionable success.

The United States was entering a legitimacy crisis in 2000 and 2001, a period that all democratic governments enter with some regularity. The last one we endured was Vietnam. The 2001 crisis was cut short by the attacks on September 11. Without those attacks the US political landscape would be a radically different place today. Even so, the same elements continue to smolder as the Bush administration burrows deeper and deeper into the quagmire that is Iraq.

At its core, the nation is polarizing. Sides are being drawn up and, as Jefferson might say, the Tree of Liberty is being refreshed, even as we speak. In the 1960s and 1970s it was the remains of the 1950s military establishment against the anti-war movement. Today we're seeing a similar backlash against corporate government.

This is an interesting time we live in, and one that is not well served by the oversimplifications you offer. What happens in these next few months will change the face of American democracy forever.

A Chinese proverb says "may you live in interesting times." Of course, it is worth noting that this is a curse.

Re:mistakes

[Archie Steel]

And why, do you think that a congress made solely of democrats and republicans will make it any easier for a non-democrat, non-republican to have a fair chance at winning office?

You're mixing things up. The whole issue is about the voting process, not the entire political system. I agree with you that a two-party system sucks, but the point here is to make sure that, at the very least, peoples' votes are tallied correctly and that voting access is adequate.

Or do you think that we don't need some serious 3rd/4th/5th party representation to fix things?

As long as there are always an even number of parties, and that they are equally divided on the right/left axis - otherwise, a new party only undermines its closer relatives while helping its most antagonistic opponents. Look at Nader, there's a good reason why Republicans are financially supporting many of his efforts to get on states' ballots. Now, if both Perot and Nader were running...

We don't seem to disagree that much, really - I just think that it's possible to improve the voting process, and that making abuses and irregularities public is the first step into reducing their impact on the overall election.

Re:mistakes

[thisgooroo]

The bottom line is, do we need them? No. Can they help us? No. Are they doing this out of their own self-interests? Probably. Does Europe want to continue to alienate itself from America? Sure seems like it.

so why did the state department invite them to monitor the election?

Re:mistakes

[Moofie]

Fill in the blanks.

Government of the ______.
By the ______.
For the ______.

Hint: The correct answer is not "States".

Re:mistakes

[quintessent]

if these guys find irregularities you know people will blow it sky high and make a huge stink.

That is a good thing. It will be a deterrant against those who wish to repeat and/or expand on some of the dirty tricks from the last election.

"Irregularites," are not normal or acceptable when they involve someone trying to prevent a legal voter or having his/her vote counted.

Re:mistakes

[Moofie]

...except by strangling their financing for education, highway maintenance, etc.

Oh, you thought you still lived in a country that had a federal system of government, with relatively autonomous states reporting to a central (but relatively weak) government?

What a pretty illusion that must be. I wish it were that way, but States' Rights died in 1862.

Re:mistakes

[Moofie]

Conservatives want a smaller fed, except for the FBI NSA CIA that will catch homos in trying to get married once we get that Constitutional amendment that was ordained by God. Oh yeah, and those dirty terrorists.

Conservatives used to be in favor of small government. Hell, conservatives used to be conservative. Now, they just want a different set of my civil liberties than the liberals.

Any voting system that does not allow me to kick ALL those conniving bastards out is broken.

Re:mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder where these Europeans were in the 1860's or the 1910's or the 1960's or the 1990's.

Nobody invited us.

What makes them such experts on running fair and honest elections today..

For a start OSCE has to exist somewhere and it just happens to be a European body. Don't like it? Fine, start your own. They've been monitoring elections for decades so I'd say that makes them pretty qualified.

..what puts them in a position to teach us anything?

Oh whatever. Look kid, Europe has been doing democracy long before the American colonies were a twinkle in the eye of some foolhardy explorers. We have several centuries of a head start on you. The 2000 elections were bodged and the US State Department has asked someone else to come take a look this time around. So obviously somebody seems to think the US can learn something from the Europeans.

Re:mistakes

[Anonymous Coward]

There were lots of irregularities in Florida, including an unconstitutional supreme court intercession in an area that the constitution specifically assigns to the states,

To the extent that the Presidential Election is described in the US Constitution, it lies within the purview of the supreme Court [except (possibly) if Congress makes an Exception, which it hasn't].


Article. III.
Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.

Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Re:mistakes

[say]

Similarly, the failure of the founding fathers to recognize the full implications of their rhetoric is not a stain on them. Again and again we apply their framework beyond what they envisioned, and again and again it proves successful. As with Maxwell, this looks very much like confirmation, rather than refutation.

Comparing political systems to physics theory is most certainly a new approach. Your statement proves nothing. It is in fact reducing the discussion to exactly idealism.

Your belief that the founding fathers' words are similar to Maxwell's discoveries imply that the founding fathers somehow has discovered a political theory, or at least some fact of life, that is correct. I strongly disagree with such a belief when it comes to politics.

Your belief is, in my (humble) opinion, dangerous, exactly because it provides such a ideological approach to politics. But who's to say what system the founding fathers would have chosen today? Who cares anyway? They did a terrific job. The american democracy has proven to be effective and prosperous. But so did the Roman democracy in its time. It deteriorated - and I think most Romans believed that they were only "applying the framework beyond what was envisioned" until the bitter end.

Re:mistakes

[Nick_dm]

>Again and again we apply their framework beyond what they envisioned, and again and again it proves successful.

I'm going to call BS on that. Time and time again the vision of the founding fathers has been spun into a version that supports the desires of the people in power. This makes America as an idealogical state all the more dangerous, as people will quote nice soundbites the Constitution, Jefferson, Washington etc. whenever it helps them, but not understand the context and real meanings.

Furthermore they ignore the opinions the founding fathers when they oppose present day Americans' way of life. Jefferson was very much against coporations and their power to undermine the good of the people. Nobody wanted a party based political system (certainly not one with only two major parties!), and they also intended almost all the power should be left to the states with a very weak federal goverment, no longer present in the ideologies of Democrats or Republicans.

It's also a bit of a stretch to believe they'd support America in "humanitarian intervention", read their words on the topic with relation to the British Empire and other European powers who went through that stage in the past.

Many of the cherished features of present day America were feared by the founding fathers, they had hoped they had done enough to prevent those fears becoming reality but it appears they didn't. Perhaps it is an imposible task without the will of the people fully behind the ideals, and that's nearly imposible as those in power will always undermine that. It would be nice to think that Americans could look to the future rather than dwelling on old ideas, but at the moment looking to the past is probably the easiest way to learn, even if most are reluctant to do it.

Re:mistakes

[Fred_A]

In every other country under the sun heavily populated areas have more votes than others. Because there are more *people*.

Why should states matter more than people ?

Re:mistakes

[lee7guy]

History of Democracy

The ideas developed in Europe and was brought along with europeans that emigrated to America, where the theories were put into practical work rather quickly, as it was a new nation without the momentum of a couple of millenia's worth of history and politics to fall back upon. Except for the native americans, but they didn't have much say in these matters.

I can't really say which country was first with implementing true democracy, because then we would have to decide at what point a democracy really is a true democracy. For example, women and people of lower classes were not allowed to vote in many early european democracies, and I am sure we could find groups that weren't in early american democracy too. The first true democracy that most people could agree with would probably be the first nation where every single grown up individual, regardless of gender or race, has the right to take part in the election of the government. Which nation was first with that, I really don't know.

You seem to reject Greece being the cradle of democracy on the the fact that they used slaves. Well, guess what, so did the united states for the first couple of centuries too.

And, btw, democracy is not something that one guy figured out over night and then implemented the next day, it is a concept that has evolved and gone in and out of fashion over millenia, with the Greek system being one of the first that implemented it in any form.

Re:mistakes

[gnuLNX]

No I disagree. I person 1 vote is good. If cali and NY always out vote the little farming states and suddenly the cost of cotton goes through the roof then suddenly cali and NY will start to think just a little different. Why should someone in Mississippi (I am from Ms living in NY) have a larger vote than someone in NY. Is that NY person some how less of a person? I think that Americans are smart enough to know that you have to also think about the heart land as well as wall street....ok maybe I am nieve, but until it has been tried I think we should keep talking about it.

Just my two cents worth

Hmm..

[Maxite]

The OSCE may try to monitor the elections, but what's to stop some corrupt politicians from exporting the officials, or even arresting them for "terrorist" charges?

Somehow, I feel the OSCE may help, but I doubt that the help will really be enough.

Jst a asmall nitpick

[JanneM]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy."

A nitpick, I know, but this is not strictly true. You've had a civil war, after all, which does not make it stable. There's quite a few other countries with as good, or better, record in this respect.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Nutria]

A nitpick, I know, but this is not strictly true. You've had a civil war, after all, which does not make it stable. There's quite a few other countries with as good, or better, record in this respect.

Even during the Civil War, the USA (not the CSA; don't know enought about it) was stable, functioning republic: there were elections, and the peaceful transfer of power from defeated incumbents to victorious opponents.

So, do you have any examples of modern replublican democracies that are as old as the US? England comes closest, I think. The "constitutional monarchy with parliament" hasn't been overthrown since Cromwell, has it?

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Onan]

"The difference between America and England is that the English think 100 miles is a long distance and the Americans think 100 years is a long time."

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Yaztromo]

Well, assuming that *is* valid, is there a democracy that has existed, say, since the civil war, besides the US?

The US Civil war ended in 1865. Canada was confederated in 1867, only two years later, and has been a completely stable democracy since this time. Many of the individual provinces were democracies prior to confederation, long before the US Civil War.

Many Americans like to think they have some sort of corner on democracy -- but they don't. The US isn't the biggest democracy (that would be India), they weren't the first democracy (the Athenians had a democracy in 6 BC), and with some of the shanannigans we've seen in previous elections, most people outside the US hadly view the US's democracy as all that "great" (don't forget that all the way into the 1960's, many southern states were still making African-Americans jump through near-impossible hoops to vote, evicted them from their land for trying, burned down places which held voting classes for African-Americans, and even murdered some black applicants).

Virtually every democracy has its dark spots -- but I (and most the rest of the democratized world) never hold up the US as being a paragon of democracy.

About the only people who consider the US to be "the worlds most stable democracy" are Americans. Most of the rest of the world would disagree with that statement. It's always a bit sad to see when some American claims this as some sort of proven fact, as it just serves to mask all the areas where the US needs to improve, and as the most economically powerful democracy, could show real leadership for the rest of the world.

Yaz.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Our Man In Redmond]

Do you count Iceland? The Althing has been around since something like 987.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick

[Darby]

That's simply ludicrous. If the US is guilty of any recent crimes in the name of democracy, it's the kind of thing where we send a ton of troops and bombs and things to install a democracy (one that "just happens" to favor our interests). While the democratic principle does not, in my mind, excuse or justify this kind of behavior, the last 100 years have shown the US to largely be in favor of empowering people (exceptions being dubious covert actions, especially in South America-

These weren't the exceptions, these were the rule.
The exceptions would be Germany and Japan, where we actually did install democratic systems.

The vast majority of the time when the US has enacted a regime change, we have deposed the democratically elected leaders and installed brutal dictators who murdered 10s of thousands of their citizens. We did this because the former leaders were looking out for the best interests of their citizens rather than for the best interests of US based companies.

If you have any doubt about this whatsoever, just look up "Banana Republic" and skip any results for the retailer.

Being a patriot does not mean saying " I love America" and "lalala I can't hear you" whenever somebody criticizes it. That is jingoism and it is pretty much the opposite of patriotism. That is what you are doing, that's what Fox news is dedicated to and it is literally destroying freedom in this country as it is the worst form of ignorance possible to a citizen.

Patriotism means honestly looking at what your country is doing and standing up against it *when* (not *if*, every country does fucked up things at times) it does.
If so many people in this country hadn't shirked their duty in this respect, we would not be in the shitty situation we are currently where we have the choice between a treasonous chimp and a clod as president.

This is a good thing

[Pentagram]

...if the US wants to ask third-world countries to allow their elections to be monitored, it can now say that it's happy for its own processes to be monitored.

Re:This is a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

-but we haven't used chemical weapons to put down a Native American revolt!

Yeah, we hadn't invented them yet, so we used biological. We did use chemical in WWI (there is a reason everyone decided to ban them...)

We are also the only country to use nuclear weapons and we used them against civilian targets.

We still have huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons (though we are waiting to destroy most) and we also have active biological weapons programs.

I trust the US much much much more than NK with nukes, but I still don't trust us. (oddly enough, Iran getting them doesn't scare me that much (compared to say israel and prementioned NK) as they don't really start wars. they just get attacked and sometimes jump in pre-existing wars)

Re:This is a good thing

[rc.loco]

Not sure where you are getting your facts from but...

Before we were officially the glorious US of A, the person in charge of military forces for British-controlled America, Jeffrey Amherst, did indeed use smallpox-infested blankets to decimate Native American tribal populations in what is now the Northeastern U.S.

In addition to biochemical warfare, we have been pretty effective at plain old murderous genocide when it came to the folks who inhabited these lands before us.

Ain't America grand?!?

Uhm, no.

[Dark Lord Seth]

Why the hell would we Europeans care? Americans are old and capable enough to take care of themselves and their elections. They are also old and capable enough to fuck themselves up the ass with a toiletbrush if they want to. Point is, they can take care of their business and by now. Let them hold their elections, use the money for more important crap, which definitely excludes baby-sitting the US.

Re:Uhm, no.

[Peyna]

The rest of the world has a very vested interest in the contiuance of the United States of America. If faith in elections falls apart, it could have serious effects on the country, and if the US were in turmoil, it would significantly negatively impact the rest of the world.

Re:Uhm, no.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yeah, why would Europe care?

It's not like the outcome of a U.S. election would have any global relevance, or have any bearing on the peace, security or economic health of the rest of the world.

Re:Uhm, no.

[Spad]

That's great - until the actions of the US start to have a significant effect on the rest of the world, which they already have. Then you start caring about who's in power over there.

Re:Uhm, no.

[jacoplane]

Don't think that this is about Europeans wanting to lecture Americans about how democracy. The process of economic globalisation, and the fact that politics continues to influence that process means that it is in their interest to know whether the American democratic process is somehow being hijacked.

Just look at what the result in Florida in 2000 has meant for Europe. Do you think that a Gore administration would have taken such a hostile stance towards Germany or France? Do you think French and German businesses have lost money because of the current political climate in the US? Of course!

So this is not Europe trying to babysit America. Rather it is Europe treating America as an equal, and standing up for its own interests. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Two ways this can go

[Kohath]

1. Observers see no problems, report they see no problems, and we get to stop hearing made-up nonsense about widespread election problems.

2. Observers claim they see problems. They might be telling the truth. They might be lying. Everyone gets upset. We never find out conclusively one way or the other.

I hope they bring their video cameras.

Re:Two ways this can go

[Epistax]

I really doubt Bush or Kerry stealing the election. What wouldn't surprise me one bit is supporters of either one doing it. Don't break it up into sides though- either someone is rigging the election or they aren't. The direction they are rigging it should not be a consideration.

Lost faith?

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Those that lost faith in the process are those who never fully understood it in the first place, ie the electoral college and the possibility of a winner who didn't get the popular vote.

soldiers need help

[gobblez]

maybe they can help us soldiers in iraq who are unable to vote. we were unable to get ahold of absentee ballots, and if we did it'd be too late anyways, the deadline was last month.

Why?

[DAldredge]

Why aren't they checking on the dead voting in Chicago or the illegals voiting in Southern California?

Sadly, this is necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it. We have a fanatical regime in power that has no repect for the constitution or the rights of individuals and will do anything to stay in power. Hopefully, we are not heading down a path which will ultimately require the European powers to return a 60 year old favor and invade us to rescue us from our own goverment.

Re:Sadly, this is necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Our 2nd amendment was written so that we wouldn't have to ask for help.

Re:Sadly, this is necessary

[Mskpath3]

Dear sir,

Your hyperbole is misplaced and oddly uninformed. Though many people are severely unhappy with the Patriot Act and the signing of Campaign Finance Reform, most are quite capable of distinguishing erosion of rights with the installation of some sort of Orwellian dictatorship.

Perhaps you would be willing to expound upon bill C.215 in Canada which literally turns thoughts and words into federal crimes. Or perhaps the phenomenon in Finland where it is completely legitimate for political parties to be outright banned from elections by the government because they are deemed too extreme. Or maybe a short essay on the United Nations where nations that actively practice slavery and advocate extermination of certain ethnic groups are part of the Security Council. Or perhaps a well-considered exposition on how Nelson Mandela, liberal-champion-extraordinaire openly supports the genocidal outlook of Robert Mugabe.

I gather you will not do any of these things. They are, of course contrary to the liberal outlook of the world, where only the US and the 'whites' who control it are truly evil. It is far easier to buy into the myth that the US is some horrible power hungry machine intent on controlling the world, despite the obvious and overwhelming evidence that should it decide to do just that, it could do so effectively unopposed.

Signed,

The American People not quite as susceptible to sensationalist views.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods, please please please STOP FUCKING MODERATING BASED ON YOUR OWN POLITICS!! IT'S NOT FLAMEBAIT OR TROLLING TO POST YOUR OPINION ON SLASHDOT! Especially if that opinion isn't badly formed or insulting. See parent if you're too dumb to know what I'm talking about!

I'm confused on this one.

[SeaFox]

Yes, part of me says "Good. There's always room for review by an outside opinion." But then I have to ask whether this organization is really going to be all that impartial. Knowing little about them I can't vouch for the idea.

The problem with having foreign nations monitor a political system for fairness is the the country will someday have to deal with the nations reviewing it on a foreign-relations basis. Ulterior motives and vested intersts will abound.

Huh? "Most stable?"

[mwillems]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy"

Huh? By whom? By Americans. Just like the German system is 'known' as being the most stable etc etc by Germans, the Finnish system is 'known' as being the most stable etc etc by Finns, etc.

Sorry, but I stop reading at that point. Anyone who says something like that needs to do a bit of research. Objectively, how do you mention stability? By lives lost in wars? Civil wars waged? People in prison as a percentage of the population? The relationship between percentage of votes cast and actual representation? Freedom ensconced in the constitution? Hanging or pregnant Chads? And by those citeria, are you still the most stable? And then following on, are you "known" to be the most stable? By whom? By the Chinese? By young Arabs? By the French?

I could go on but I am getting tired trying to bridge a gap of this magnitude...

Re:Huh? "Most stable?"

[mofochickamo]

I agree that stable is ambiguous. Perhaps he meant the length of time the U.S. constitution has survived or the length of time the the U.S. has been a democracy compared to other democracies (disclaimer: I'm not even sure if the U.S. is the leader in these two categories).

Re:Huh? "Most stable?"

[scheidl.g]

We don't have democracy anyway. Democracy means you have an option, but in fact you are just electing people from the same big lobby. It just means you have an influence what smiling face will rip you off next.

In Europe, we have dropped the nationalism, because we already know that the third world has been ruined by America AND Europe. That makes me rather be ashame, than happy to live in such a good country.

We don't have democracies, we have lobby dictatorship for at least 20 years now.

regars

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[casuist99]

Moderators, the parent isn't flamebait. Moderate on content, not your personal ideology. It'll attract attention and comments, but in the same way discussions about copyrights do. Come on.

The US election was fine

[gr8_phk]

The last US election went fine. Remember, Bush won Florida by a little bit. Gore got all upset and went to court for recounts and all that. We all talked about interpreting chads and crap and in the end, Bush won Florida and the election. It pointed out a strange property of the system that allows the person with the popular vote not to win, but that is the system that's been in place for ages.

The voting system isn't perfect - never has been. People hate Bush, look at the legal battle and recounting (which Gore wanted) and the fact that he didn't have the majority vote nationwide, and think he somehow cheated.

The only major flaw I see is the one that has all attention focused on the 2 inferior candidates. Oh, that and Diebold voting machines. But then, I could be blind.

The biggest problem with this...

[PapayaSF]

..is that it doesn't address the most common type of vote fraud in the U.S., which might be termed voter registration fraud. As long as people showing up at the polls get in and get their votes counted, an outside observer is likely to conclude that all is well. Will an outside observer even notice that there are more voters registered in St. Louis or Philadelphia than the census says there are adults in those cities?

They have lost trust in the American election...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Sorry, but I'm supposed to trust some toothless european agency with ulterior motives any more?

Sure, the election has been rigged... and it was done two years ago. I can't help but feel derision for anyone who either A) doesn't point that out or B) treat it as so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning.

When they steal our choice from us, please note that it's not in some dangling chads on ballots that should be awarded to Kerry, it was when they only allowed us the choice between Kerry and Bush. Neither are acceptable.

What's the big deal?

[Malfourmed]

Even the biggest, most ethical companies are audited every year*. In fact, the willingnes to submit oneself to external scrutiny sends a much more comforting signal that there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

Why shouldn't the same be true for elections?

* Yes, audits of public (and certain private) companies are mandatory not voluntary, but it's the principle of the matter that applies.

Monitoring is good

[X.25]

I don't see why/how this should be humiliating. History has shown (many times) that not even the best of us (in whatever area of life) are to be trusted 100% all the time. People fail, systems fail, democracies fail. For one, I don't mind having election monitoring in my country, since that reassures me there was no trouble and no tricks were pulled. Americans should feel the same. Americans are humans too, and humans all make mistakes (internally or otherwise). Or, would they feel safer if FoxNews or some US govt funded organization was 'monitoring'?

Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh ... you mean like elections in Iraq are the sole business of Iraqi citizens?

Or Chile?

Or Haiti and Venezuela?

Or maybe the one of the myriad other countries that have seen similar US interference?

Help me out here, I'm confused ...

Re:US votes?

[wrf3]

The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the concept of the popular vote. They rejected it for excellent reasons.

If Bush wins both the popular and electoral votes in November then what will you find to complain about?

Re:Bah

[Scrameustache]

No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?

Because no one monitored anybody else's elections in the 19th century.

Re:Bah

[kbahey]

No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?

Several reasons:

• Then, the USA was not as influential in world affairs. Now it is.
• Then, the USA was not a super power, nor the only super power. Now it is.
• Then, the USA did not have a pre-emtive war doctrine. Now it does.
• Then, the USA did not invade a soveriegn country illegally, against international law. Now it does.
• Then, the USA did not say: "You are either with us, or with the terrorist". Now it does.

I am sure there are more.

Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty

[gtoomey]

So you think it OK for the US to monitor elections in Iraq or Bosnia, but other countries can't monitor US elections?

Countries like Switzerland & Australia view the 2000 presidential election as a farce

Erm, yes

[RiotXIX]

While before 2000 I would have agreed with you, in that if a country screws up, it's not really anyone else's concern, just leave them to it, but I think the rest of the world is now starting to care about the state of US elections a lot more, mainly for the reason that we are talking about a country, and, more particularly, A SINGLE PRESIDENT (because in America's defense, I don't think that the majority of citizens are a good reflection of the current president), who, on his own whim, will invade countries outide his own. If Gore had won the election (and, let's be frank, maybe he did), then MANY lives outside America would still be in tact. America may be old enough to 'fuck itself' as you put it, but when it's government starts running countries outside it's own, then it does become the rest of the world's business.

Re:US votes?

[tempest2i]

Using popular vote in the United States isn't as easy as you think it would be. In a country with 150 million votes cast (assuming 1/2 vote) how close would the vote have to be before you're doing a full recount? 1%? Do you think the election would be decided by 1.5 million votes? I think that's pretty realistic, and then you're stuck recounting the whole damn country.

Not to mention the fact that you'd have to streamline the entire country's voting process. Everyone would have to vote using the same format with all the same candidates.

Think about it.

I'm by no means saying the current method of electing officals in the US is perfect, but the solution isn't nearly as easy as you make it sound.

Re:2000 election

[Anonymous Coward]

"The 2000 election was not a screwup, it was a coin toss. Neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote in either the nation or in Florida. In fact, in both the differences were statistically insignificant."

It may be that the people illegally barred from voting were statistically significant, and the vote-counting issue may have been an attempt to distract you from more serious problems.

News programmes like to have something to talk about (as do their viewers), so while you're all scrutinising the last few florida votes or making jokes about the layout of ballot papers, nobody was looking at the people being turned away from polling booths, nor at the polling machines systematically "breaking" when you attempt to vote for the wrong candidate.

Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty

[katharsis83]

Sort of like how China's elections are it's problems? Or for that matter, China-Taiwan relations are it's own business? Sort of like Iraq *was* a sovereign nation which posed NO threat to US National Security, except maybe cheaper prices for gas? hypocrites.

I'd have to agree.

[reality-bytes]

I believe it would be wise if every democracy invited 3rd-party observers in to monitor their election process.

If there is nothing to hide then there is everything to gain by proving that any given democracy is a true democracy.

Re:US votes?

[Entropius]

If you lived in a heavily liberal state, your voice wouldn't be heard either--only the handful of states close to 50% matter.

I've run some statistics on voting power per person (defined as the odds that your vote will decide your state multiplied by your state's electoral votes), and had to go back and doublecheck my math--a Florida voter's voting influence is orders of magnitude higher than mine (I am an Alabamian, sadly.)

The electoral college system is a horrid system--it promotes two candidates that try to be as much like each other as possible to the exclusion of third-party candidates (like we have now), and effectively disenfranchises lots of people. It can result in the election of a candidate even though a majority of the populace prefers the opponent through the "spoiler" phenomenon (Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000. Had Perot not been there, Bush probably would have won; had Nader not been there, Gore likely would have won.)

We need something else badly. Approval voting, Condorcet voting, or any of those other systems would be best, but even a straight primary-runoff system (as is used in American municipal elections) would be better than the electoral college.

Unfortunately a tremendous procedural inertia is built into the American system; attempting to use the political process to change the way politics is conducted requires a sustained, intense political effort-of-will, since the process for amending the US Constitution is so difficult. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (Pelor only knows what sorts of crazy amendments we'd be stuck with otherwise--google "Alabama constitution" for a demonstration), but it means the voting process won't be changed anytime soon.

You've got to be joking!

[darnok]

> The United States is known as being the world's
> most stable democracy.

Not to cast aspersions, but by which criteria do you make this statement?

If we allow that the US actually is a democracy:
- many other democracies have been around longer
- many other democracies have not been subjected to a civil war
- many other democracies have not had in-office Presidents assassinated
- many other democracies have not fought as many wars
- many other democracies have lower crime rates

I'd go on, but hopefully the point is now made - the US is a lot of things (good and bad), but calling it the "most stable democracy" is really pushing it.

Re:US votes?

[Zak3056]

Yep, it's called the popular vote.

We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a senate: to keep the more populous states from walking all over the less populous states.

It's a good system overall, though I think changing the way electors are apportioned would be a good modification.

Re:US votes?

[1010011010]

Popular vote is ok and all, but I'd like to have an instant runoff system if the U.S. ever converts to directly electing Presidents and Vice Presidents.

Doing so will require changing the Constitution, and trashing a portion of the federalism it embodies.

The Federal government was created to provide for a common defense for the states, and to standardize a few other things -- like bankruptcy law. The Federal government was never meant to have so much power as it does now. If the federal government's power were to be once again limited, it would matter less who was President.

I think that's the right way to go -- not to popularly elect the 'king', but instead to remove the king's power and retore power to those institutions closer to and more accountable to the people -- state and local governments.

Then the Federal government will go back to being the represtentative of the states in foreign policy, and running the Navy on the State's behalf. ... "sheep fucker/slave master circles" -- nice. I'll assume you mean the Kennedys, their associates, and hangers-on.

Re:US votes?

[Onan]

While removing the layer of abstraction that the Electoral College represents would improve things somewhat, the more fundamental problem is using a plurality vote in the first place.

Plurality voting encourages strategic (as opposed to honest) voting, and thus does a terrible job of representing the genuine desires of the electorate. A Borda/Condorcet system or approval voting system would allow people to honestly portray their preferences without ever needing to be concerned about "throwing away" their votes.

Re:2000 election

[entrigant]

The 2000 election was not a screwup, it was a coin toss.

The day we start deciding presidents based on chance is a sad day indeed.

Neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote in either the nation or in Florida. In fact, in both the differences were statistically insignificant.

This is a load of bull. Gore DID win the majority vote. Bush DID win the majority of electoral college points. Bush ARGUABLY won the majority vote in Florida. "Statistically insignificant" is not applicable. This is an election, and in such a thing if it comes to it one single vote in millions WILL mean the difference between winning and losing. If it's 20 million to 20 million one then the 20 million one wins.

There was no way to resolve the issue without one side feeling cheated.

There would have been no reason to feel cheated had there been no controversy in Florida. If there wasn't then all the rules would have been followed and the winner would have won fair and square. This, however, was not the case. I won't go into details of the issues in Florida here as they aren't really relevant other than to say there was very good reason for both sides to raise hell.

Either way, in the event of a true tie there are proper ways to handle the tie breaker, and the supreme court is not it.

I believe you are also missing the point of this organization monitoring the presedential election.

Re:US votes?

[Onan]

These arguments all seem to come to, "but then we'd have to pay attention to how people actually voted!"

I'm having a very hard time finding this to be a deterrent.

Re:CNN has more

[easter1916]

Yikers! Me too. Shame on me, a pathetic paddy, for suggesting that what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Jesus, I'll never bother pointing flaws in the system out to my American friends again. Apparently, election systems in western Europe are fair game, but to suggest that anything dodgy could happen here is just... un-American! (but I'm not American!)

Thanks Flordia Democrats.

[MasterDater]

How is this the republicans fault? It was the democrats being creative with votes that had hanging and "pregnant" chads that caused a real lack of confidence here. Stop being a bitter troll.

We know who has to deal with it

[roesti]

We really don't know who actually won Florida, it depends on how you count 'em. The rules in place made Bush the winner. Some people just can't deal with it.

By "some people", are you referring to the 55,000 Florida voters who were illegally barred from voting, the one million voters whose votes were never counted?

Re:US votes?

[SnowZero]

The popular vote would be an improvement, but has one fatal flaw: It would result in country-wide recounts in close elections (most of the recent ones, for example). IMO approval voting by district is the best compromise of representation by area and issue. It would also allow a true multi-party system. This is the same system the Libertarian cantidate wants. Unfortunately the major two parties will never let this happen, since it opens the doors to more parties.

If Al Gore had ever tried to propose an amendment implementing election reform in his time in the US Senate, then maybe I would feel sorry for him. Same goes for Senator Kerry if a similar unfortunate fate befalls him. The Democrats seems to be happy with the system, even willing to lose a few elections to it, in order to keep the status quo of two parties. I was really hoping the Dems would push for election reform after 2000, but alas no, they instead focus their energies on swing states and fighting Nader in court and in the press.

Re:2000 election

[nwbvt]

"I don't know what cow college you studied math and statistics at but I'd say that a difference of 543,895 votes, or one half percent, is statistically significant."

Do you honestly believe that what went on in Florida was the only scandal in the election? No, there were scandals all over the country. People buying votes, people results called early, "Nader-trader" sites, etc. Counting votes is not an exact science. Thus, one half of a percent, or 500,000 votes, is statistically insignificant.

"If we had a direct popular vote, or if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today."

So? If our elections were decided by the candidates by a battle to the death Arnold Schwarzenegger would be president. Whats your point?

2000 was no anomoly

[gad_zuki!]

Tell that to the people on Harris' Scrub list who were NOT felons and were not allowed to vote. I doubt you'd be saying things like "Sore/Loserman" if you went to your polling place and was turned away because the county is so corrupt it put together an especially messy list to discriminate against black voters.

Article w/ screenshots of the DB here.

Electorial fraud has a colorful history in the US and its not limited to just Florida. How about Illinois during JFK/Nixon? Blacks in the south in the 60's? How about the recent scandels around Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Milwaukee ? Funny how all those cities are in swing-states, generally.

The US needs observers more than ever, especially with electronic voting. I do believe there is a federal law which disallows this. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Re:2000 was no anomoly

[ChaosDiscord]

1. Every person on that list had months to appeal their entry on the list

Wait, I did hear something about that... let me see if I can find the article...

"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine month."

"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

"But the plans were on display ..."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a flashlight."

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

I know I certainly don't make a habit of requesting voter blacklists to see if I'm still allowed to vote. I just kindof assume that what with my not being a felon and all, that I'm still allowed. Perhaps I'm just naive.

2. The names improperly on the list were of a demographic more likely to vote for Bush.

According to many surveys I just made up, they all would have voted for Dukakis. Odd, huh? The reality is that we won't know how they would have voted. And it's irrelevant anyway; any illegal disenfranchisment should be abhorrant to every American.

3. Many districts just ignored the list because of the improper inclusions on it, allowing felons to vote who shouldn't have

Given the choice between letting felons vote and denying the vote to legit voters, I'd let the felons vote any day. Good for the districts who chose to do so. (Better yet, good for the vast freaking majority of the country that just lets released felons vote. Blocking the felon vote is a waste of time.)

Re:US votes?

[Valar]

Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?

Re:2000 election

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

"If we had a direct popular vote..."

Then it would be impossible to get political change in the US. We have an electoral vote for many reasons, but one of them is that it makes the elections close. Neither Bush nor Kerry would pay any attention to my state if we had a popular vote. There's simply not enough population here.

The purpose of an electoral vote is to make every vote count. A potential leader cannot simply attract the majority, they must attract all of the different opinions accross the entire country. The idea is that the president should have to compromise to represent *all* the people, instead of simply representing the majority.

Re:US votes?

[Rayonic]

If the popular vote was implemented before 2000 we wouldn't be suffering from the insane megalomanical texan from hell(aka as 'w' in the sheep-fucker/slave master circles).

You can't actually say that. If the election was based on popular vote, instead of the Electoral College, then both candidates would have run their campaigns differently -- passing over states they otherwise would have visited, and concentrating on large population centers. Nevermind the fact that more people in non-swing states would have voted. (Why vote in Texas/Massachusetts if you know Bush/Kerry is going to win anyway?)

Oh, and good job on the name-calling. Very mature.

Re:US votes?

[Lord Kano]

If the popular vote was implemented before 2000 we wouldn't be suffering from the insane megalomanical texan from hell(aka as 'w' in the sheep-fucker/slave master circles).

Dude, seriously, the election is over. Your guy lost. Get over it. Even we conservatives eventually stopped crying about how Perot cost us the 1992 election.

Given the rules that were in place on election day 2000, Al Gore lost. It's as simple as that. Now, you want to look back and say "Well, if the rules had been different, we would have won!" Maybe, but they weren't different.

Moreover, not every absentee ballot was counted. They didn't need to be. In California alone, Gore won by such a margin that even if every absentee ballot was cast for Bush it wouldn't have changed the result of that state's election. But, it is possible that the uncounted absentee ballots would have been enough to cause a swing in the popular vote. We'll never know.

Unfortunately I live in a conservative state, where my voice won't be heard.

I'm from Pittsburgh. It's an odd place. TONS of hunters and religious conservatives, but lots of union democrats. It shapes up that all of the county offices are held by Democrats, the govornor is a Democrat, but our Senators are Republicans.

In 2000, my state went to Gore. Know what? My vote didn't matter either. My uncounted vote for Bush cancels out your uncounted vote for Gore.

LK

Re:2000 election

[danheskett]

Let's see:

104,338,854 votes recorded.

If we are using equipment that averages 98% combined adjusted accuracy (undervotes, overvotes, missed votes, mutliple votes, malfunctions, etc) than it means that there is a legitimate range of 2,086,777 of votes that between an exact tie and a stastical tie.

The margin was in fact 543,895 votes. Even if the accuracy was 99% - some counties do have machines with that level of accuracy - the vote range would have to exceed 1,043,388 to be certain.
In Florida, the margin was so much closer than the margin in the entire country that it is impossible, and remain impossible, to determine what the true will of the voters was with 100% confidence.

The fact is that there is no voting technology currently used anywhere that can collect 6 million votes in one 12-hour day and tabulate them with a 100% accuracy rate.

If this country was a direct democracy Gore would have won, but he would have suffered the same pall of illegimaticy that Bush suffers from. Why?

Because you cannot in good science and conscience declare that the will of the people was for Gore or Bush to be President in 2000. The equipment does not support that conclusion. There were many other states that were almost as close as Florida.

Regardless of the form of election - our current system or a direct democracy, you cannot register a valid election when the number of votes between the two top candidates is below the margin of error for the equipment in use.

Time to grow up and face it.

This is NOT humiliating.

[pyrrhonist]

for some Americans this comes as a humiliation

This is far from being a humiliation. The OSCE was asked by Secretary of State Colin Powell to monitor the upcoming election.

Furthermore, this isn't the first time they have monitored an election in the U.S. They monitored both the 2002 midterm elections and the California gubernatorial recall election.

So, uh, quit your bitchin'.

Re:This is NOT humiliating.

[zCyl]

Europe,

Thank you.

-- An American.

Elections should be carefully monitored by as many independent groups as possible. The highest levels of vigilance are the only way to maintain a free democracy.

Re:US votes?

[ip_fired]

No. Because there are differences in what a person who lives in California or New York wants out of a political system compared to someone who lives in Wyoming or Utah. I live in Utah, and as it is even now, the candidates very very rarely even THINK about what I would like my government to do. If you got rid of the electoral college, then I might as well live in my own country, because I'm not going to get anything that the huge masses of humanity in California don't want. And that is very likely what it would lead to. A large number of states that are ignored by one of the most powerful offices in our government because we would not affect the outcome in any election. I'm all for some type of change, but not one that will diminish the little power that I do have as a voting citizen in a small state.

World's Most Stable Democracy

[madsenj37]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy."

We are not a democracy. We are a very democratic republic. This is a very important point that many people misunderstand.

Re:US votes?

[Zak3056]

Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?

What do you mean "help the most people possible?" It's an election, not allocation of funding.

One needs to understand that the United States is not (at least by design, anyway) a monolithic entity, but actually a confederation of 50 sovereign nations.

When this federation was being set up, the states with the least population--and remember, these are sovereign nations--felt that a system that aportioned power based on population would see their states reduced to unimportance, with no say in interstate or foreign issues. The more populous states felt, in turn, that a system that aportioned power as a fixed percentage (i.e. "one state, one vote" as it were) left THEM, with their larger populations, with less power than they should rightfully have.

The result was the bicameral system we have today, where the legislature is divided into two houses--one with a fixed amount of votes per state, and the other with delegates aportioned by population, with each state having at least one delegate.

The electoral college is a combination of both of these ideas: each state receives a number of electors equal to their number of delegates in the house of representatives, plus the number of delegates in the senate. This ensures that pure population doesn't elect the president and create a situation where a state has no national voice.

It is in no way a perfect system, but it is a fairly good one given the issues that needed to be dealt with.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[TykeClone]

Illinois - 1960. Hizonner Mayor Daley (D - Chicago) delivered the state to Kennedy in about as close of a race as Florida 2000.

Re:America

[bman08]

They have zero authority. All they have the right to do is call bullshit on the election, and submit a report about the things that they saw. The people of Europe can do with that information what they wish. I think every country should do this to every other country. In a perfect world, outside oversight helps ferret out corruption. In the real world, it will probably just provide every country with mud to sling at each other.

I'm picturing a spirited bout of "I don't have to deal with you, you're not even the real president" between the US and France next time someone wants to start a war.

What planet are you on?

[MacFury]

The last US election went fine.

Informative my ass. Many people were turned away from the polls. Many people were removed from voter lists because they were likely to vote democratic.

What I find funny is that even after these tactics, it was a close election with Bush nearly not winning. Bush stole the white house.

The state of US Elections is pretty bad. It stands to get worse with electronic voting.

Re:US votes?

[hackstraw]

We have an electoral college for the same reason we have a senate: to keep the more populous states from walking all over the less populous states.

So we have the electorial college and senate, which part is redundant?

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Archie Steel]

Seeing a pattern yet?

I see a pattern of voter fraud allegations on both sides. This, it seems, is reason enough to have impartial observers around.

I'm also curious to hear why you consider Colin Powell a democrat? After all, the Secretary of State invited the observers jointly with members of Congress. Then again, you do try to make a comparison between five states on one side (totalling 83 electoral votes), and one state (10 votes) plus two counties...

Re:You've obviously never heard of "Manifest Desti

[killjoe]

I don't hate you because you think Kerry is a douche bag, I hate you because you don't think GW is one.

US-centred /. gets silly now

[fiddlesticks]

>The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy

Known by whom, exactly?

More stable than where, exactly? The UK ? Switzerland? Canada?

That sentence makes no sense, it's utter gibberish.

My rewrite:

'To Americans, the United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy'

Now, it makes sense.

Re:Bah

[Blastrogath]

* Then, the USA did not invade a soveriegn country illegally, against international law. Now it does.

What about the US/Mexican war? US citezens moved into and siezed through military power: Texas, New Mexico, and California. Have none of you ever heard of the "Manifest Destiny" doctrine?

Canadian forein policy in the 1800s was centred around fear of invasion by the US. A driving force behind Canadian independence from england was to make it politicaly harder for the US to invade. A fair number of people viewed leaving the british empire as a protective sacrifice.

The US was historicly a violently expansionist state.

Re:US votes?

[Lord Kano]

Bush I didn't win the popular vote in 1992.

Neither did Clinton.

LK

Gore likely would've

[Aexia]

continued the focus on terrorism that Clinton acquired towards the end of his term. A Gore administration would have continued to foster the law enforcement environment that would have connected the dots that could've prevented 9/11.

There were a wide variety of anti-terrorism and anti-Al Quaeda initiatives started under Clinton that Bush put on the back burner.

I guess we'll never know.

Really though, it's difficult to *seriously* envision any scenario where Gore screws up more than Bush has.

Europe is not 3rd world

[Blastrogath]

So yeah, we've seen it all before. Its still not a reason to have 3rd world countries come in and monitor the biggest and most efficient representative republics in the world.

Oh, and here I thought they where coming from EUROPE. You know, that area west of asia that's been industrialised longer than the US?

Masquerade of Lies, Bias, Advocacy Journalism

[reallocate]

The poster provides no evidence to support his claim of widespread embarrassment in the U.S. about the OSCE monitors, relying on a single BBC report for credibility. That report, in turn, does not mention embarrassment, and, in fact, sites a single anonymous source for the alleged widespread cynicism about voting. (How can enbarrassment be widespread about an activiry hardly anyone knows about?)

All that is typical from Slashdot and BBC. One organization practices advocacy yellow journalism while claiming over and over that it doesn't engage in journalism, while the other has sullied a decades-long record of professional journalism with bias and incompetence.

Of course, neither the poster, not Slashdot or the BBC, mention that the monitors are here because we invited them. They are both quite ready to omit facts that don't suit their agenda.

Re:The problem isn't the electoral colleges

[Zak3056]

It's the fact that in most states if you win by one vote you win all the college votes. To the people in other democracies around the world this is just plain insanity.

I'd note that it's worked for us for longer than the other democracies around the world have BEEN democracies. Different things work in different situations--without the system we have now, there wouldn't BE a United States because either the larger or smaller states wouldn't have gone for it.

Personally, I find the democratic systems around the world where elections don't happen on a regular schedule, but only have to be once every n years with the party in power getting to schedule them to be insanity, myself--but I'd never dream of telling those people they were doing it wrong.

The only thing that that puzzles us more is why some states have different rules.

My post above should have explained that well enough, I think: because each state is sovereign, they get to set their own rules as far as things like elections go. It's like asking why two different member states of the EU have different elections processes.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, this has to be one of the stupidest arguments yet. Just because you saw it in F9/11 doesn't make it so.

How many types of attacks were supposed to happen?

We've had bombs at the WTC, terrorists were supposed to poison the water supply, spread mad cow disease or smallpox, crash a small plane packed with explosives into a nuclear reactor, blow up a boat next to a nuclear sub, attempt targeted assasinations, suicide bombers, poison gas in subways ala Japan, hijack planes to bargain for prisoners, fly small planes into large ones, shoot down planes with shoulder-fired rockets, posion stadiums with crop dusters, ... Let's see, what did I miss?

There's probably been a memo on every one of these. Stop being retarded. When there are too many dots to connect, it becomes statistical noise.

Most security personnel at the time thought hijackings would be for negotiations like they had been in the past, or that small planes packed with explosives would be crashed into something smaller.

So which dots exactly do you think were missed?M aybe we should have increased the state's spying powers? Maybe we should have spent more money on the CIA? I doubt those were high on most peoples' lists here before 9/11. Hell, I doubt they are now.

Re:US votes?

[Holi]

As an ex-minister (Episcopalian, suffered a crisis of faith that made me question whether I was fit to lead others spiritualy). I hoped God spoke through me, but NEVER would I declare to the world that God did indeed speak through me. I find it terrifying that our president uses that argument. It is religious zealots like that that lead down the very dark path.

God does speak to all his children but I am pretty sure he did not tell Bush to invade Iraq. The God I talked about loved all his children not just the white ones. You speak of Christ yet I don't see his teachings in our president's actions.

I thought religious wars were behind us, unfortunately a fundamentalist war has been brewing for awhile now and I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg.

We know enough

[caitsith01]

"All those who were surprised about the way the 2000 election went never really understood our election process in the beginning."

Complete b.s. Most informed forners undertand how your system works perfectly - and not very well is one description that comes to mind. And you are not going to tell me you weren't 'surprised' when the US was without a president for a month as the parties brawled it out in the Floridan and Supreme Courts, while acrimonious recriminations reverbrated from coast to coast in the most politically divisive atmosphere since the 1960s.

The 2000 election was a shambolic, third world-style embarassment, and an insult to the shared traditions of democracy that we in the developed world like to call our heritage. It highlighted the many glaring flaws in the US system, including (but not limited to):

- hundreds of millions of dollars being required to win the election
- states controlling the voting process
- politically appointed election officials(! WTF? This would never happen in a million years where I come from, it's completely outrageous).
- politically appointed judges deciding about the fate of the person who potentially appoints their successors (!!!!)
- widespread allegations of vote rigging through intimidation and 'blacklisting' of eligible voters (would be enough to require a reelection in many countries)

I look forwards to Episode II: The End of Democracy.

Re:US votes?

[Specks]

"his alienation of the US from the world community"

I don't see other countries asking for our approval when they do things. Why is it that we have to seek their approval just to feel like one of the crowd? The world sees us as a dominating force because we are so successful and they hate, fear and are jealous of it at the same time. What about the corruption that was discovered in the oil for food program? I doubt very much that the individuals involved in that are going to answer for it. It's a big slap in the face.

pardon?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy."

Since when? 1965 with the Voting Rights Act so blacks could vote in the South? The US barely meets the internationally recognized minimum of two generations.

The US is the richest and most powerful democracy, and it is deeply respected for many absolutely valid and heroic reasons, but it is not the world's most stable democracy. Several countries have done better there.

Where the heck did you go to school? Fox news? That's just incredibly ignorant.

68 election THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING

[zogger]

The 68 election was one of the best ones ever! At least it had some spuink to it, some hormones, some energy! Exciting! The country was teetering on the brink of a 4 or 5 way civil war, and don't let no one tell you no different. It extended a few more years like that, fairly tense times, but 67-69 were by far the most intense. The budget was outta control, guns AND butter was too expensive, it couldn't be done. We had 4 clearly defined and clearly different candidates, who all got total news coverage. *Nothing* like it is now, not even close. The incumbent president refused to run again. (gee, wonder why with the nation falling apart around him?) The most likely Dem candidate got wasted by what looks to this day as a brainwashed sleeper agent, some kinda zombie..an inside job perhaps.. A populist ethnic minority leader got wasted, that appears to have been with the collusion of certain federal agencies and personnel.... A third party populist candidate pulled 5 states ELECTORAL vote. We had high level intrigues, there were political assassinations, even of candidates, massive protests, riots going on, cities ablaze, a popular war for some, highly unpopular for others, a quagmire that had been going on for some years, a cultural revolution, old paradignms smashed, new ones created overnight just to be discarded the next day, everything from music to economics to politics to lifestyles to...everything was in constant flux, constant change. It wasn't all good, it wasn't all bad, but it certainly WAS, it really WAS.

Nowadays, elections are almost boring. What do we have, let's peek:

skull and bones yale elitist, millionaire globalist

skull and bones yale elitist, millioniare globalist

a few other guys who never even get in the newspapers, except for very occasionaly, and all they get asked is why they are making people "waste" their vote, don't they know they will hurt the skull and bones millionaires chances, letting the skull and bones candidate win? How dare they even try!

a war that is popular in some quarters, very unpopular in others (finally,a match)

No comparison, 2004 fails it! The globalist goons got controlling the herds down to a science, even the protests lead to nothing! The news media don't even jump on juicy stuff anymore, they IGNORE it in favor of planned controlled distractions, such as minutiae like forged nat guard documents when the entire 9-11 commission report got enough holes for a dozen golf courses. And something as simple and basic as "we have a ballot box, you can verify the count with your eyes,anyone who can count, or "trust" some anonymous corporate structure and their dubious track record and alleged honest programming....." Hmm..lemme think....why ain't there riots over this abomination again?

The vote is a scam, the election is already over, it's predetermined, the NWO globalist profits at any cost including blood party wins again! Huu-rah for ..our side?

BTW, you getting a -1 troll mod is wrong, you spoke the truth. It may be unpopular, but you are correct, there would have been very little difference in 2000. I twas a dog and pony show to keep the herds riled up and rooting for one of the two heads of the same demon..

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Given the NAACP vs Katherine Harris settlement

[Serveert]

reveltions, it's clear that America needs this unfortunately.

Now if they could review the gerrymandering which has resulted in democrats needing 57% of the vote in order to control the house of representatives then we'll be one step closer to a democratic republic.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Gore who was dissatisfied with the outcome, and wanted to cherry pick counties for a hand recount that he thought wrongly would give him the state.

Re:US votes?

[Mithrandir]

Actually, there's very few. I've spent many years working in the polling booths for both state and federal elections both in NSW and WA. The last time, before I moved to the US, I was in charge of a booth, thus having the final say of whether a vote was invalidated or not. It was moderate size - taking about 3000 votes.

In almost every booth I worked in informal votes were extremely rare. In the order of 5-10 per 1000 votes counted. It takes a lot to make a vote informal, and voter education is very high and the Australian Electoral Commission spends a lot of money on ads to keep it that way. Voting is very simple, and outside each booth every political party hands out flyers with a listing of their preference order for people to use. Those that don't care for anything except their marginal candidate just copy the numbers down, drop the vote in the ballot box and walk out. Apart from the queuing to get your name marked off, less than a minute can be spent in the entire process.

The beneficial aspect of the aussie voting system is that because everyone must vote, everyone actually cares about and pays attention to the politics. It's a case of "well if I have to, I'm going to make sure I make a difference". There's lots of viable candidates from all political parts of the spectrum, and all of them have a pretty decent chance of getting voted in. For example, a party that was selling highly racist policies manages to get a collection of senate seats and a couple of lower house seats. Same thing with the heavy greenies, who happen to hold the balance of power in the senate. It works far better than the system here in the USA from my observation.

What's with the attitude?!

[lowlands]

Frankly I am amazed by the hostility towards Europe while this is only about a European organization which was *invited* by the US to have a look. I have seen several remarks telling Europe to fsck off, references made to Hitler and all sorts of other rude stuff. Why? Does your US#1 propaganda show more cracks?

As a European let me say this: your election in Florida was the best Disney show I ever saw. I do not know of any other country in the Western world where the Governor helps his brother become President who then abuses his newly acquired power to start all sorts of wars, helps his rich buddies get richer and sends the economy spiraling down.

It will not take long before China & Europe stop financing your ridiculous deficit and demand cold cash. That's when the US will collapse and sadly be probably an even better reality show than Jeb & George do Florida. This threat should concern you much more than the OCSE coming over. Think about what is happening with the economy of your country, the serious danger the US deficit poses and how you can make a difference with your vote.

Re:US votes?

[Grym]

Umm...Mods? How in any way is this interesting?

Come on Slashdot! You complain about "Faux" News being a bastion of republican influence and then promote slanderous bile like this to a +5 score--sometimes in the same thread!

...needed Cheney with him at 9/11 comission hearings...

Say what you will, but if there were an organized determined segment of people trying to discredit you at every chance, you'd be careful too. It's not an indication of guilt. Were there any inconsistency between their stories--no matter how minor or insignificant--people like you would be calling for impeachment.

...was paralysed when informed of WTC attacks...

Weren't we all? The fact is that a terrorist attack already in progress is almost impossible to stop. I'd bet you believe that John Kerry would be Man-of-Action and get fighter jets up in the air within minutes of the first plane crash--bullshit. Hindsight is 20/20. Something the democrats are going to find out is that having ONLY criticism like the above without proposing better solutions for the future doesn't help anyone.

...his religious delusions of granduer ("God speaks through me")...

Oh really? Find me where and when he said that. Or was that just a quote from your imagination? I guess it doesn't matter if your sources are wrong, provided you have an unwavering faith in the validity of the overall story, right?

You're making the mistake many liberals make by confusing Bush's pandering to the conservative "Bible-Belt," with his personal beliefs. In actuality, GWB--and the Bush family in general--are quite religiously moderate.

...his alienation of the US from the world community, his simplistic black/white view of the world ("You're either with us, or against us"), his occasional grammatical gaffes...

Fair enough. Nobody except your conservative counterparts are saying he was the best president ever, and even though I myself will probably vote for him in November, I will have many reservations in doing so.

-Grym

Re:US votes?

[lawpoop]

"Kerry said of himself that when he learned of the attacks, he sat frozen for over a half hour.".

He wasn't exactly commander in chief at the time, you know.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess when they can't deal with the
truth they just resort to moderating
posts as "Flamebait".

what is good for the goose....

[kallen3]

So let me get this straight. The United States can go around sticking it's nose into other countries business, telling people how to live and what to think. Basically telling other countries that they have to toe the line as dictated by the U.S. yet when the same standard is applied to the United States there are howls of indignation? So tell me what are we trying to hide?

World's most stable democracy?

[NewsWatcher]

You wrote "The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy. "
What planet are you living on? The USA may be a fairly stable democracy, but you can't compare the country that has events like the Los Angeles riots, the twin tower terror attacks and regular civil unrest with places like New Zealand or Australia. Democractic the US may be, but stable? Give me a break.

Re:US votes?

[Zak3056]

So in effect you could say that the united states of america is a republic of democratic states?

Actually, given that each state is set up on similar lines as the overall nation, you could say that we're a republic of republics. :)

how is tha that the united states of america has the illusion of being a beacon of democracy?

What illusion? In general, we hold democratic ideals sacred--sure we do things a little bit differently than everybody else, but our constitution has worked for us for two hundred and fifteen years. It was (rightly) regarded at the dawn of the 19th century to be wonderful and marvelous, a great experiment in freedom. People came here in their millions from old European nations that didn't want them, and they discovered how and why America was great. Slowly, but surely, the rest of the world caught up.

Things certainly have changed over the last fifty years--and recent events are indeed troubling--but if the above isn't the very definition of "beacon of democracy" I don't know what is.

Re:US votes?

[wass]

But why should someone from small-town Montana get effectively 3x the voting power as someone from a small town in rural California? Your reasoning falls apart because small-town California concerns will be entirely ignored in favor of the Californian big cities, but small-town Montana is still considered important.

Anyway, besides the disproportionate number of representatives, there are two other major problems with the electoral college. The all-or-nothing voting block that gets cast for whoever has the plurality of the state. To be more fair the representative votes should be proportional to the number of votes. That will really help improve chances of 3rd parties getting elected.

Secondly, the whole concept of the electoral representatives is pretty stupid. Namely, the president is chosen by the selected representatives, who are only SUPPOSED to vote with their state, they're not mandated to. These selected people have effectively the voting power of a million times the normal person, hardly a fair system.

If those two problems are fixed, then it would make things much better. The electoral vote would more closely match the popular vote, and the small states would still have their legislative power.

Re:New Zealand

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't call yourself a democracy if 50% of the adult populatiuon is barred from voting.

Why not? I guess that means our historical views of democracy are all wrong because they weren't colored by contemporary feminism.

Re:US votes?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

We should never tolerate evil. That's why I'm voting Kerry in 04.

A war fought for choice not necessity is evil. There wasn't any credible WMD evidence and 1000+ of our boys have died for it.

Re:America

[Awptimus Prime]

Memo to the OSCE:

Re: International observers for US elections

Fuck off.

Making America look more like a hellish pit of arrogance and ignorance, one forum post at a time. eh?

electronic voting from home

[jesterzog]

Though I am still in huge favor of electronic voting from home. But that's a separate story.

Why?

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans.

[Just Some Guy]

As one who was living in Missouri at the time: GOOD! There was a huge amount of controversy over a judge's ruling to keep polls open three hours later in St. Louis than in the rest of the state. Basically, every other citizen was told that their vote wasn't as important as those from St. Louis. Since that city has a very high concentration of registered Democrats, it's not too surprising that the last-minute vote swung heavily in that direction.

Can you imagine the outcry if Republican strongholds were allowed to keep voting after the Democrat-leaning areas were closed and counted? Yet the reverse is exactly what happened in 2000. Frankly, I'm glad that there will be outside observers monitoring the Missouri elections, because that state can't manage to keep them straight on its own.

Of note, although Bush still won Missouri, that's the election where John Ashcroft lost to the deceased Mel Carnahan by 49% to 51%. It's widely speculated (and believed) that he would have won by a clear margin had St. Louis polls been closed at the same time as the rest of the state. Ironically, had he won, he'd probably still be a senator instead of Attorney General. Guess that one kind of backfired, huh?

Re:European Democracy?

[quax]

I guess you mean the same Haider that visited and comforted Saddam shortly before the US invaded? The same guy who still believes his good old buddy Saddam could have never been stupid enough to be captured by the US?

Silly European countries to be upset that such a freak gets so many votes in Austria.

I was looking for a comment to moderate...

[phamNewan]

but all I could find lots of rhetoric from every possible angle. Americans trashing the article, Europeans enjoying the opportunity to trash talk, and lots of insults to go around, few of which are even remotely related to the article at hand, and since I don't have 800 moderator points, I will comment instead.

The facts are simple, The US has the longest continuous democratic government in the world. So the comment stable government is accurate in that sense.

However, since it is old, and politicians have been writing the laws for so long to their own advantage, it is a very complicated process in which the laws of each state, can have an impact in how a president of the country is elected. Granted the parlimentary system can get very complicated, and back room deals are critical for a majority to be reached, just ask Italy about that.

No democracy is perfect, and it is safe to say that there has never been a national election in which cheating, mistakes, and outright stupidty on someones part did not cause inaccuracy in the numbers.

Now the European monitors will have no actual authority to do anything. US law, and courts will control all aspects, as it should be. They will see a very boring election in the respect that it will be a bunch of normal people going to the polls on the first Tuesday of November. There will not be gangs outside beating people who do not vote the way they want. No one will feel like they were pressured into voting a certain way, it will be a stable election.

Now if it close again, then the lawyers will get involved, and then the bloodbath will begin. So let them watch. Nothing they could say will match the level of hysteria that media will propagate over every little bit (literally) of ridiculous trash they can find, and in the end, there will still be a peaceful transition of power if Kerry wins, and a peaceful continuation if Bush wins. That is what it is all about.

It's been 144 years since the US failed to have a peaceful transistion based on an election. I think it will be ok.

Re:I was looking for a comment to moderate...

[nullportal]

> Umm - not Iceland with the rule of the Althing since about the 1100s? Not Switzerland? Granted, Iceland became a colony of Denmark, but it had a long long history of democratic rule before then. Switzerland became ruled by a duly appointed/elected junta in WWII, but there seemed to be widespread common consent to this as a matter of national survival so there seems to be the requisite continuity, accounting for wartime exigencies. It's theocratic phase, much earlier, was not country wide. If you are going to count interruptions, don't forget that the US in Reconstruction, or at and after the time of the death of Reconstruction, suffered a certain amount of democratius interruptus while sorting out whether the million pound Federal gorilla or state power was to be the predominant political influence - a struggle that was won by the million pound gorilla and has remained a stable victory to this day. All hail King Kong - his farts truly dooooo smell sweet. The essence of this thread is: Is American democracy as advertised, or does it warrant scrutiny. Plenty of the comments are on point. Narrower issues miss the point.

Democracy and feminism

[driptray]

I guess that means our historical views of democracy are all wrong because they weren't colored by contemporary feminism.

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

Decades Too Late

[nullportal]

Europe is decades too late in instituting monitoring of US elections. JFK's daddy already purchased a Presidential election from the Chicago mob, and "Landslide Lyndon" showed he was no slouch in this art. Oh, but wait. They were lefty democrats. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along. Move right along until it is a Republican who is awarded a disputed election, based on the ballots tallied, and THEN start to monitor. Yeah. But if this attention can do anything to wipe out this idiotic unauditable electronic voting, I'm for it.

Re:Why no compulsory vote?

[grainofsand]

You don't have absolute freedom because there are "legal boundaries". Choice is not freedom.

Freedoms only exist because they are granted to us. We once had the freedom to own and keep slaves. That freedom has been taken away.

We accept state-imposed freedom-limitation in many way as we recognise the benefit for a larger group (society) than the individual (the inherent state-citizen contract again).

Do you mean to say that voting is "..the promotion of nationalist sentiment."?

Voting, in my view, is the ultimate freedom - the right to choose one's own leaders. Compulsory voting is to ensure that better than 52% of the population exercises that most important of rights (or at least take a moment to think about it).

Re:America

[general_re]

Oh, goody. The extremely partisan USCCR determined that the election had problems. Considering that the chair of the commission, Mary Frances Berry, illegally suppressed a dissenting report prepared by members of her own committee, and later illegally blocked new (conservative) commissioners from being seated, who on earth would rationally consider them an authoritative source?

They're not, of course - that report was a foregone conclusion, prepared by a partisan commission, operation in furtherance of a partisan political agenda. And that's a fact.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

just like open source...

[Anonymous Coward]

the more eyes, the better @@

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time

[TWX]

"If I [remember], in Florida and elsewhere, there were a lot of blacks that were turned away from voting and this did not look good to the rest of the world..."

If I rememeber correctly, it's suspected that someone whose job was to remove ineligible voters from the lists removed everyone with the same or similar name or alias to the person to be removed. Accounting for last names like Johnson, Smith, Thompson, and other particularly common ones that's a lot of people.

If something like that happens again with any kind of real quantity of the electorate I'll be in favor of extending voting rights to anyone who is a citizen who registers, with convicted felons serving their terms simply unable to physically get to the polls to cast their ballot as the disenfranchising part of their loss of rights. Yes, this would allow parolled and probationed ex-cons to vote, but if they're physically among the populace then we're not exactly doing much more than requiring them to pop in and say, "hello" from time to time. They may as well be included if it prevents this level of crap again.

Vote rigging

[microsopht]

What are the prospects of rigging votes..?

is it possible for fake votes?
If yes,then no harm in monitoring.

If it feels its a insult if europeans monitor,then america is insulting them.

Re:"It failed us four years ago"

[Anonymous Coward]

But make no mistake. We won't forget this.

Please don't. And don't just remember it, learn from it too. You know, to make less mistakes in the future.

Okay, this discussion is heading for a prolonged pointless quarrel, and I couldn't ever be arsed. Fortunately those (North) Americans I have the pleasure of knowing are quite different from you. Great folks, and ones I have reason to admire. The things they have enabled me to really learn about USA have given me reason to admire the country, too. You know, always pros and cons, things to fix, where-ever you are in the world...

[By the way, Kerry is popular in Europe not directly because of his views on the world, but his affable manner. You just gotta love the big guy who doesn't show any ego problem. Compare this to slashdotters' attitude toward the IBM of the past (an evil empire of management and lawyers) and the IBM of the present (still strictly business but champions of open source): there is something of a similarity.]

Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time

[XO]

er.. yeah.. why AREN'T those who are out of prison eligible to vote?

oh, i bet the republicans would be really against that. :D

Re:US votes?

[Grym]

You might want to avoid this rhetorical chestnut in the future, unless you honestly believe that everyone on Slashdot believes the exact same things. You'd have to be clinically retarded to do so...

Is that your diagnosis, doc? Seriously, all I was doing was pointing out the fact that the collective group of people, from here on known as "Slashdot," are mind-bogglingly liberal at times. Try and defend Fox News some time. You won't get a point. But spew anti-Bush rhetoric (regardless of whether its true or even logical), and you'll get modded to the top. It's the new brand of karma whoring.

This election is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils, and you have to be experiencing extreme cognitive dissonance to honestly think that voting for Bush is a good idea.

Another diagnosis, huh? So I guess that means that +45% of the country right now is experiencing severe psychological distress? Perhaps we should have everybody who doesn't vote the way we want committed, eh?

There is such a thing as legitimate disagreement. You and the rest of the far left need to wake up and realize that Bush isn't evil and that John Kerry isn't the panacea to all our nations problems. That kind of talk only alienates moderate, Independent voters like myself. As far as I'm concerned, you're right: it is a textbook example of the lesser of two evils. And, if the election were tomorrow, I'd be casting my vote against the far left which currently embraces nothing less than hatred and outright lies against a sitting president during a time of war.

-Grym

rights of convicted persons

[TWX]

If I understand matters, until the Court considers your debt to society paid your civil rights are partially suspended. If you are on parole you have no reasonable expectation of privacy compared to any given person, and you are held to the highest standards of behavior and rules for what you are and are not allowed to do. In theory the Court should restore your civil rights once you are off parole, out of probation, or released from prison with all time considered served.

Sexual predator and sex offender registries complicate matters, as this is another condition upon the individual that lasts past any prison term, parole, or probationary period. I don't quite know how I feel about it, though I wonder if they would be better served to simply redefine the punishments for the crimes to include permanent probation or parole instead of the current registry terms, for right now it gives the impression of continuing to punish the convicted person after after we've otherwise indicated that their punishment is officially considered concluded. They are people, after all, so maybe in addition to the punitive part of their sentence they should be required to undergo psychological help or some kind rehabilitation to help deal with the problems, rather than leaving them to their own devices. It seems to be a broken system right now.

Re:rights of convicted persons

[rdc_uk]

"Convicted felons are a highly Democrat voting group."

That seems to be a seperate symptom of your country's stagnant, possibly moribund political system, rather than a good reason to accept nullifying legitmate votes...

"The number of illegal double voters in Florida and several other states is quite likely to have exceeded the margin of victory in those states in the 2000 presidential election."

In the words of one of my country's previous prime ministers; I refer you to my previous response.

These are other symptoms of a problem, not reasons to perpetuate / exacerbate that problem.

knoppix wouldn't solve any real problems

[jesterzog]

It wouldn't be that bad if you did it with a bootable read-only CD a la Knoppix.

But technical security of the voting system is hardly the only problem. You're also opening the door for people to complain that the voting didn't work for them at some point after the election. (eg. Connection was cut, display showed incorrect colours, keyboard was mapped badly, or whatever.) With no authorised officials present at voting to monitor the process, equipment, and help anyone who's having problems, there's no reliable way to guarantee that each person is equally capable of voting.

Another problem that's at least as big in a serious election is that there's no way to audit that every vote was cast anonymously and without coersion by third parties. eg. Pointing a gun at someone to name an extreme example, as is threatening someone of repurcussions if they don't return from the voting procedure with the "correct receipt".

Voting in national elections is one of the few places where I personally think that computer-technical solutions should be avoided unless they're really needed. As well as the problems above, 99% of the population simply aren't qualified to understand a counting process when it's done by a computer, and are forced to trust a small minority.

Compared with the concept of people counting pape votes that were deposited in a box while watched by representatives of all sides, the abstract nature of how digital voting and counting works is very difficult for most people to grasp. At the very least there should always be a simple variant of a paper trail produced at voting time, so the option for a mass-understood recount is always available. If a voting system is to be fair and representative, there have to be reasonable grounds for those using it to be able to trust that their votes are being counted properly to produce the result.

Letting people boot into something like a Knoppix-based system might make sure they're not infected by the Windows virus of the month, but it wouldn't solve any real problems with computer-based elections.

no, that is NOT the assumption

[subtropolis]

so i won't attempt any alternate history. The point is that he did nothing. It seems acceptable by all that Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, said to him "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack." Opinions diverge at this point. Card later had this take on it:

The President, in front of very young students, paused for a quick and quiet moment as he focused on the challenge. His leadership and resolve were soon evident to the world.

Criminy! The US was under attack by persons/entities unknown and he did not bolt? The SS Red Team did not spring into action? WTF was going on here? He sat there for seven minutes completely outside communication* while this was unfolding. Appearing resolved for the cameras a few days later doesn't cut it. I can't fathom that he's been compared to Winston Churchill.**

Secret Service agents and other security personnel had set up a television in a nearby classroom. They turned on the TV just as Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center. According to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill, who was in the room, a Marine responsible for carrying Bush's phone immediately said to Balkwill, "We're out of here. Can you get everyone ready?" [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02]*** But he must have been overruled by someone, because Bush did not leave. (my emphasis)

The quote above is from this page which gives an account of Bush's actions that day. Interesting read. Is it factual? That's what we're trying to find out.

I'm not going to download the video on my dialup connection

i urge you to see the (entire) video. It's sobering.

* though supposedly, Ari Fleischer, his press secretary, wrote "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET" and held it up for Bush to see. But that doesn't really count
** But it's funny for two reasons. Here's an interesting article about some parallels between events in America during ~1930--45 and those today.
*** the attribution to the herald-trib points to this link, which appears to no longer exist.

lots of partisan crap

[XO]

There's lots of partisan crap on this thread.

I want to attempt to put an end to it.

Admit, if you will, that there was a controversy regarding our last presidential election, some of it's methods, and it's results.

Therefore, why WOULDN'T an independant body be appropriate to looking into it?

Re:Europe is not 3rd world

[Blastrogath]

I don't think Yugoslavia is in charge of the OSCE. and what was the point? That you distain european nations and wish to inacurately belittle them?

Is USA the best democracy?

[mowler2]

The "USA is the worlds most stable/best democracy" is a propaganda sentence. It is nonbalanced subjective thinking presented as fact. In newsmedia from USA I have often seen that - and a general thinking of "we have the best democracy ever".

And IMO that sentence is very wrong. A simple example would be that fellons are not allowed to vote - SOME groups of people are not ALLOWED to vote - I can't understand why that does not make more people upset in the USA. It is horrible and non-democratic. Another example on the USA democratic system is the fact that there are only 2 parties - a direct result, IMO, of the stupid "one winner takes it all"-system (I am thinking of the presidency, not the senate). Also I am very negative towards the highly individual-focused system; You vote for one president, and focus a lot on his personal attributes - which is TOTALLY wrong - one should only look at the party which the candidate represents.

If I would choose the country that has the best democracy, I would choose Switzerland, followed by a row of other European countries such as the scandinavian ones, germany, etc.

Re:I disagree.

[fucksl4shd0t]

The electoral college isn't the only solution to this problem, it's just the one we have. We can solve the problem in other ways.

Take as an example a voting method that involves ranking the candidates. So each states uses this voting method to aggregate an entire rank of candidates, and then each state gets to cast a vote based on this rank. You could do away with the electoral college completely and still ensure that states get a say as a group, and the minorities in the group get their say. Under this system, let's say the person in your state that made the 4th rank places second in two other states. Now the chances have gone up that he will get elected, and there are (in three states, at least) a significant amount of people that would accept him as president. Under our current system, he's toast.

As long as you filter the votes at the state level before passing them on, you've solved the problem the electoral college solves. How you do it is another issue as well. The simple fact is, under the electoral college there are a number of states that have marginal influence on the election, because even when added together they still represent less than the required number of electoral votes needed. That's why New Mexico is never a battleground state. It just doesn't matter, they're only three votes. Texas, on the other hand, would be a battleground state (except it usually votes republican).

I like the fact that the electoral college means the president has to lie to most states instead of just lying in CA and NY, but the electoral college isn't the only way to solve thsi problem. IN any case, the Electorate can certainly use better reports than they're getting. I mean, right now they get 40% like Bush, 39% like Kerry, 10% like Nader, etc. How about if they got , instead, 40% like Bush, most of them like Kerry too. 39% like Kerry, but most of them hate Bush. Choosing Kerry would make 86% of your voters happy, whereas choosing Bush would only satisfy 40% of your voters. Under our current system, Bush wins because 40 Voting is all about reporting, and we need to first understand that our current system of voting does not provide enough information to make the best possible decision on how to best represent the people. Then we can work on solving that problem. When it's solved, then we can see if the electoral college itself is broken, or if it works fine when you put the right reports into the hands of the electors.

Re:What about all the blacks turned away last time

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently punishing criminals is valued higher than democracy around there.

Re:of course, the rest of the world isn't any bett

[Alci12]

Odd how many of those European countries accept more immigrants per head than the US with all those 'racist' attitudes...

Re:"It failed us four years ago"

[ultranova]

These observers are here because 13 Democratic Congressmen asked them to be (and the State Department, but if you know anything of State, it has a reputation of being filled with left-leaning idealists).

At first I was angry at this, thinking it was an insult, a way for Europeans to poke us in the side.

So US congressmen asked Europeans to observe, and Europeans have decided to do as asked. I do not see how honoring an invitation could be considered an insult by the inviter. Could you please explain ?

Let them come and watch. Once again, we'll have a free, successful election. Problems will be found here and there, but it will overwhelmingly be an honest election.

Well, those congressmen don't seem to be as confident about that as you, since they asked for observers.

I personally think the Europeans aren't going to get the result they want (a Kerry victory), and so they'll mumble that is was a fair but stupid decision by the Americans, and then they can skulk on home.

Nice use of adjectives. Have you considered a career in propaganda ?

But make no mistake. We won't forget this.

Won't forget what ? That you asked for Europe's help in ensuring that your elections are conducted fairly, and Europe delivered the aid requested ?

I could understand your statement if Europe had refused...

Re:Bah

[MemoryDragon]

Well a more modern example is probably modern Iraq, also Afghanistan, if you go after international law. The invasion in Afghanistan was and still is backed by the international community. The key person in the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument, Hans Blix stated already way before the invasion that there were none, several others also did.

The invasion of Iraq was based upon blatant lies, international warnings about the chaos which already is there now, and a blatand ignorance of the US government regarding the whole middle east and worldwide solution. The invasion according to Annan still was/is illegal if you go after strict international law.

OCSE ? Why not, what's the problem ?

[elpapacito]

Breakdown of votes from 1920 to 2002shows that the majority of Americans who voted either voted for Democrats or for Republicans.

Quite simply it's a bi-polar political party system in which the two parties are against each other in the race to control two fundamental processes ; allocation of government resources and formation and implementation of federal and/or state laws.

Obviously, the presence of such rich prizes is a very strong motivator to win for any party. Nobody (disillusioned enough) is going to believe the fight between the two will be an amicable exchange of punches above the waist line, simply because what is at stake is worth any trick ; the absence of an impartial judge is an even stronger motivator.

The presence of external observators like OCSE and others is a serious problem to those that think that a third party is not going to be merely an annoyance ; it may be a problem for X party that would like to buy observator favor somehow..same applies to Y party. It may be a problem to both X and Y if they both think the observator will really be impartial AND show the deficencies of the whole voting system (not only the electronic vs paper ballot).

I think that during the last presidential elections Americans received a strong wake up call : the political oligarchy which really runs the country (too often in bed with too few strong concentrations of private power) is trying to take away the last bastion of a democratic system, by taking away our right to kick away or severely reduce the power of some party we no longer want. We already are subject to the tirannny of the majority system in which the winner too often forgets he/she is representing ALL the population, not only the supporting party.

The issues of corruption of representatives, gullibility level of the average voter and partisan infiltrations in the legislative system are likely to become totally insignificant if the voter will no longer be able to have a say on what's going on...why care about voters interest if their vote isn't worth poop anyway ?

Re:Worlds most stable democracy?

[drew]

Take the 'War for Democracy' path the USA is taking now. Anyone who understands what Democracy is knows War is the failure of democracy. We are suppose to go to war if we can't figure out a democratic solution to the problem, That is what democracy is about so going to war for democracy is a contradiction.

I think you have your definitions mixed up. War is the failure of diplomacy. We are suppose to go to war if we can't figure out a diplomatic solution to the problem.

That said, I think 'War for Democracy' is a ridiculous idea, however, I don't see that it is necessarily a contradiction in terms.