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

[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 It was a result of outdated technology and a ballot that was confusing to read.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 It was a result of outdated technology and a ballot that was confusing to read.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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Moofie]

Fill in the blanks.

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

Hint: The correct answer is not "States".

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.

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

[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.

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)

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.

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.

Why?

[DAldredge]

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

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: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.

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.

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

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.

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?

[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: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: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: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.

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: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.

[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: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?

[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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.