Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's always good to learn from your mistakes, but it's even better to learn from someone elses.
Hey! We are perfectly capable of voting on our own thank you! The Diebold company assures me of that.
I laughed for about 2 minutes and people in the apartment are looking at me funny. This is just too funny. I wonder if and how Fox will report it "Kerry calls upon his french contributors to undermine the US of A" oh god, this news makes my day...
Somehow, I feel the OSCE may help, but I doubt that the help will really be enough.
Ah, you found me!
"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.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
...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.
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.
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.
No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?
e le ction%2C_1876
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_
http://www.michaellorenzen.com/1876.html
"In 1876 the election for the President of the United States ended in a dispute. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received 184 electoral votes, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes received 165, and 20 electoral votes were uncertain, two different sets of returns being certified. The Electoral Commission was formed to settle the result. The disputed results involved 19 electors from Florida, Louisana, and South Carolina as well as one from Oregon. In those states, the official returns favored the Democrats, but the elections were marked by fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters and the Republican dominated electoral commissions were able to throw out enough votes to allow the Republicans to win those states. The result was two sets of returns, one certified by the governor favoring the Republicans and one certified by the state legislatures favoring the Democrats.
In the case of Oregon, the votes were clearly in favor of the Republicans. However, one of the Republican electors was a postmaster. The Democratic governor claimed that the elector was constitutionally disqualified on the grounds of holding a Federal office and therefore substituted a Democratic elector in his place."
I'm not an American but I can imagine that this process would be humiliating. However I feel that if at the end the monitors come out and say that the process was entirely fail then all the better. The USA always goes on that it is a leading light of democracy. Now is the time to put that mantra to the test.
Add to that, the US is a sovereign nation. Europe can monitor the elections all they want, they still can't do shit about it.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Why aren't they checking on the dead voting in Chicago or the illegals voiting in Southern California?
As an American, I welcome oversight from a foreign country. Oh, any by all means, let it be a 3rd world nation where they take the vote seriously.
As in the Columbia Spectator...
... to observe the course of their national election proceedings."
The OSCE was actually invited by the State Department (unlike the attempted invitation of the United Nations by Democrats in the House) and has observed elections in the US before, such as during the 2002 mid-terms and the California gubernatorial race. Indeed, the former Bush, in 1990, signed the Copenhagen Document which stated that signers (such as the US) may "invite observers from any other [OSCE] participating States
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.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
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!
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.
"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...
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
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.
What?
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.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
The fact that the country did not break into civil war is because we ARE a model democracy.
This applies whether you agree with the outcome of the election or not.
The idea that a close vote means that we're unstable is ridiculous. There are rules and regulations for these scenarios and they were followed. Unfortunately, a few were added as well (ah hem, hanging chads), but all hell did NOT break loose and the results were LAWFULLY established.
..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?
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
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.
a world in progress...
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'?
that a european organization can fix by monitoring everything? They can't do anything. All they're going to end up doing is saying that something wasn't done correctly and wheover loses the election will use that to turn the nation to civil war again. No one cheated in the last election, it was just a close call.
If your Constitution really says that Bush won, which it doesn't, then you really need a new Constitution.
No? Then what good are they? :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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 ...
This story explains why it is the OSCE that has been invited to do the job and not the UN, which is more common. Of course it has to do with the US congress where mentioning the two letters U.N. is worse than mentioning the four letters f.u.c.k.
As a European living in the US, I remember that back in 2000 I mentioned to my friends using UN elections monitors for the next election, after which I was verbally lynched for about an hour.
Apparently not a popular idea :)
The system isn't flawed because people don't vote.
If people don't vote, then they don't vote. Do you really think that George W. Bush and John F. Kerry would be the candidates if say 80% of people that could vote would vote?
Hell no.
The system is the system, it works fine, except for say 1876 and 2000, from 1789 on. The system isn't the cause of low voter turnout or a lack of viable third candidate. Look at the third candidates we've had since 1988 in the US.
Any of them capable of gathering enough support to really be President of the United States from the voters or the members of the Senate and House? One, Ross Perot and in the middle of his run in 1992, he quit, then came back and was still able to get 18.87% of the Popular vote, but no states, what might have been if he'd not quit and then come back?
OSCA was asked by the US to come. They where invited.
OSCA has a policy to always accept these invitations.
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?
They're not saying the OSCE (or whatever the hell they call themselves) would be required to "certify" the results, it's just the world reacting in a certain way to the 2000 presidential election.
A previous poster made a good point. All those who were surprised about the way the 2000 election went never really understood our election process in the beginning. Most other countries don't even bother trying to understand WHY we do things the way we do. There are lots of good reasons for keeping the electoral college, for example.
To the rest of the world: The USA is not a democracy. Shocker, huh? We're a democratic republic.
My main point: We'll still run our own elections, our own monitoring groups will still be in charge of spotting irregularities (Dead folks on voter rolls in Chicago, etc), but this is Europe trying to embarass the USA. It's popular right now with such anti-American sentiment worldwide. Don't get your knickers in a twist about this.
Countries like Switzerland & Australia view the 2000 presidential election as a farce
This is sure to get the Republicans riled up, especially in Florida.
I doubt the OSCE will be able to do much real monitoring here, but I would certainly welcome additional scrutiny on the paperless-voting side of things. (Obligatory link to blackbox in case anyone hasn't been there.)
I just read a Vanity Fair article on the situation in Florida and it was scary. There's an Acrobatification of it floating around... looks like the PDFs can be found here: part one, part two and... hmmm, I can't find the end bit.
My own informal poll shows a strong European anti-Bush sentiment, which we could safely assume will combine with this initiative to generate a certain kind of PR... mainly negative I expect.
This Like That - fun with words!
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.
awake since 7, angry since I met you
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.
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.
Our government spends way more than it takes in. A huge percentage of our finished goods are made in other countries, even high tech goods. We start wars on skimpy evidence just to keep the population in line behind a shakey leader. The government constantly puts out an interpretation of its situation wildly at odds with what is reported in the world press. Our health care system is available to shrinking portion of our population. And now we hear that somebody else has to check and see if our election process is rigged. All that is left is for our credit rating to catch up with our deficit spending and the last of our green card engineers to go back to home countries where their wages will soon be buying them a better life than than they do here.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
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.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
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.
> 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.
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.
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.
(a) have a margin of <1% and
(b) aren't the exception to "winner-take-all" in terms of Electoral College votes
(I think Maine and Nebraska are the only one that proportionally allocate E.C. votes. Might be wrong on that.)
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.
Monitors only go to 3rd world contries when asked by the host countries. It's a way of demonstrating to the world their legitamacy.
The US has no need to do this. 2000 was an anomoly where the results were so close that the differential was within the margin of error.
Given even just the issues with Diebold that have come to light so far, I think it is clear that some sort of external auditing would be good. The Diebold systems are sufficiently weak that all manner of things could happen. All it would take is some over zealous Democrat (just look at the forged memos to see they exist) and you could end up with John Kerry as your president. On the other side, you've got an over zealous Republican hacker, or the CEO of Diebold (who is merely a fairly zealous Republican). No matter who you support, you have plenty of reasons to be worried, and be supportive of this auditing.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Skopje and Ouagadougou are the capitals of Macedonia and Burkina Faso, respectively. Kazakhstan is a country. There are two Congos: the Republic of the Congo (formerly French Middle Congo), and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which lies just to the east. Eastern DROC borders Rwanda, where there was a massive genocide 10 years ago.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
What ulterior motives? Really... and the USA is a member of the OSCE, by the way.
Europe isn't trying to embarass the USA. The OSCE was *invited*. In fact, it's not even truly a European organisation. It may be based in Vienna, but it's members include not only Europe, but parts of Asia, Canada, and the USA.
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.
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.
Um... more populous states have, by definition, more people in them. Shouldn't the priority be to help the most people possible?
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Shortly after the mess that was the 2000 election, Fidel Castro offered to send Cuban election observers to Florida. I guess he does have a sense of humor.
I am officially gone from
I always wanted to make this bumper sticker for Florida Democrats:
Get your Unix fortune now!
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.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
These people were invited on behalf of Dems. But, don't think this is a move designed to facilitate fair elections. Here's Yahoo's report a while back, which gives a few more details such as what states will be observed; Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, and Georgia. Interesting how these five states all went republican last election, no? And if they want to observe corruption, why not go to the most corrupt county in the US; Cook County IL? Or, running close behind; Hudson County, NJ? Maybe because these go consistantly Democrat? Why not examine the widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin, where Democratic operatives were out on the street passing out cigarettes to the homeless to get them to vote specifically for Gore and where there are already signs of attempted voter fraud in 2004? (BTW; Wisconsin went Gore, but just barely) Seeing a pattern yet? This is a purely partisan action. All that this says is the aftermath of the 2004 elections is going to be nastier than 2000.
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
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'.
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Perhaps it's time to consider an amicable dissolution. Split the country right down the Mississippi River and give everyone ten years to pick a side and move. Or let people vote on what side they want to live and make the division based on a percentage of the population. Authorize some kind of land swap deal so families on one side or the other can trade for property of near equal value. Provide tax credits and subsidies for moving.
If you choose to travel to or stay on...whichever side...you agree to live by the laws and standards on that side of the country.
The right wing side would get all the religious freaks and could ban drugs, porn, abortion, make being gay a crime, reinstate the draft and set up whatever kind of religious symbols they want on government buildings and really enjoy getting the Ashcroft/Cheney/Renquist/Scalia treatment. Paradoxically the same type society our country's founders moved over here to get away from.
The progressive side of the country could live life their own way.
My suggestion is we give the right the side that has the most prisons already built. That way they don't go broke the first couple years.
Hey, just because we started out united it doesn't mean we have to stay that way.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
Don't count your messages before they ACK.
His stupidity, his inane policies, his inability to lead (needed Cheney with him at 9/11 comission hearings, was paralysed when informed of WTC attacks), his religious delusions of granduer ("God speaks through me"), 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...
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
"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.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Illinois - 1960. Hizonner Mayor Daley (D - Chicago) delivered the state to Kennedy in about as close of a race as Florida 2000.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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.
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?
The world's oldest (and possibly most stable) democracy is New Zealand. This is primarily due to the fact they were the first nation to allow women to vote.
You can't call yourself a democracy if 50% of the adult populatiuon is barred from voting.
Well, I live in Georgia and can understand why our elections should be monitored. In the 2002 elections, we were the first state to have entirely switched over to Diebold elctronic voting machines. That election, Sen. Max Cleland and Gov. Roy Barnes were expected to win judging from polls immediately before the election. Curiously, the Republican Saxby Chamblis won the Senate race and Sonny (serously) Perdue won the race for Governor. To be quite honest, I don't think that they stole the election; there are other reasons the polls could've swung so rapidly. Still, I can't help but wonder sometimes whether our elections were a "test" case for public acceptance of anomolous electronic voting machine results.
harmonious design
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...
Reminder: find a new sig
Diebold?
harmonious design
The overall popular vote was close, but not nearly close enough to need a recount.
It would have been an improvement because the whole recount fiasco would have been avoided.
I don't hate you because you think Kerry is a douche bag, I hate you because you don't think GW is one.
evil is as evil does
>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.
http://milkshake.dexy.org
So we have the electorial college and senate, which part is redundant?
Neither--one is legislative, the other is executive. As for judicial, the Senate fills that role, too, by having the power to confirm or reject federal judges.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
"If a dead man can understand a Chicago ballot well enough to vote, it's not too complex to include 3rd party candidates..." - Mike Lorrey
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Bush I didn't win the popular vote in 1992.
Neither did Clinton.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
This is the most misleading Slashdot article I have ever read.
If you actually look at their site they are also monitoring elections in France, Canada, Greece, Spain, and Australia. Hardly "third world countries", and I don't remember any recent civil wars in them either.
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?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
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.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
>>had Nader not been there, Gore likely would have won.
The "spoiler" phenomenon isn't ironclad logic to me.
Living in a heavily republican state (guaranteed for Bush), I voted for Ralph Nader, hoping to get the guy the 5% of the popular vote or whatever it is that a party needs to get the matching federal funds, etc, next time around. Otherwise, I would have voted for Bush too.
I know 3 other people who did the exact same thing, and we didn't discuss it beforehand. (One I'd never even met yet.) We can't be the only ones. I'm willing to bet it is a statistically significant subtraction from the "lost votes" of the mainstream candidate.
I personally think it'd be interesting to go back to the original system... Whoever wins is president, whoever comes in second is vice president. Tumultuous? I'm sure, initially. But if the polarization endemic currently subsided, they'd have to cooperate and compromise to get anything done. Ideally (and ostensibly, impractically) we'd be better for it.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Jeez, how hard is it to do some fact checking before posting things like that?
Haider was never PM of Austria, his party was a member of the ruling coalition though in 2000, and he is governor of the state of Carinthia. Read wikipedia entry to get some details.
Haider is an avowed anti-EU politician. In 2000 some EU member countries did impose limited diplomatic sanction on Austria. In this case this meant cancelling of visits, recall of ambassadors, etc, and had zero direct economic consequence. I.e this was a gesture of disapproval, and yes any country is entitled to do that, this is was diplomacy is all about. Israel did exactly the same BTW.
FYI Haider is a neo-Nazi revisionist. For once you'd like Europeans to do something when people like Haider get too close to actually governing a country. You remember the last time the European did nothing?
Nice double standards you've got there.
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
"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.
Read Pynchon.
A contemporary French constitutionalist once said "The genius of the framers of the US constitution is how they at once, in a single document, gave the power to the people and took it away from them"
"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.
Specks
Batteries not included
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.
..our side?
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
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 based on user account deletion
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.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
You're believing Michael Moore about this, aren't you? This is one of his many lies. Witnesses on the spot have a different story.
On the other hand, Kerry said of himself that when he learned of the attacks, he sat frozen for over a half hour. (This was on the 8 July Larry King Live interview.) Even if we were to believe that Bush froze, it was for no more than 7 minutes.
Good thing it wasn't Kerry on the spot then, huh?
And the brethren went away edified.
Clinton didn't have a majority of the vote, but he did have a clear plurality (ie: he got more votes than anyone else). While a better vote-counting system (such as Approval or Condorcet) might be nice, a first-past-the-post system based on the popular vote would have unambiguously selected Clinton as the winner.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Or is this more of the media's misguided use of terminology and its application whenever they report "Democracy". Does it really mean "Republic"?
As someone correctly clarified in a nested post, we are a democratic republic. However, in the end, we are basically a republic.
Of course, I imagine the media's handling of the word "Democracy," is tantamount to their handling of the word "Communism," of which there has never been a true implementation.
Democracy has a certain feel-good rhetoric... it is just easier to carry out the misunderstood application of the term than to bother to correct it for people.
I mean, when more people can't name the vice President than can, I don't think they bother about making sure to say "republic," which sounds so much more un-nice than "democracy" does.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
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.
Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
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.
Worst of all, the person who posted this story doesn't even realize he is living in a republic. It may have a lot of democratic processes, especially at the state level, but it's first and foremost a republic.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
IronChefMorimoto: I think the politicians in Europe are pretty desperate to keep the eyes of the typical European away from the coming demographic economic disaster that's coming for the EU. The European states are typically becoming very old and won't have enough working people to support the government entitlement systems they have. Look at how France has to hold it's nose and put up with immigrating large numbers of arabs they don't really want. Why Arab immigrants? Because as a group they are the most biased towards the young (take a look at Saudi Arabia which is very young demographically) and Europe needs lots of young immigrants to compensate for their own populations not having enough children. This seems to be a big problem in the west in general, people are either deciding kids are too expensive to afford or are just deciding not to have them (why?) M.
He wasn't exactly commander in chief at the time, you know.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
You're believing Michael Moore about this, aren't you? This is one of his many lies. Witnesses on the spot have a different story.
Spread your disinformation elsewhere. Here's a video that shows every instant from the moment Anderew Card whispered in Bush's ear until Bush got out of his chair.
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?
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.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
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.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
make world, not war
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?
What happens when OSCE is compromised, granting that it has not happened already?
The USA is a far different animal from Congo or Kazakhstan. There are counties in the USA, many of them, with greater GDP than all OSCE surveyed nations minus the new guy. There's a lot of money, and power, at stake, more than would ever be in the case of Congo, etc.
You know the old adage about security, that any thief with enough a) time and b) resources can prevail against even the toughest security systems. So, if we're going to assume that one of the big players in this upcoming election has an interest in rigging it, we have a serious problem because they control a lot of resources, and have a lot of time.
Humans are always the softest point of penetration or exploit for any supposedly secure system. Compromise the humans in charge of security (and security auditing), and you don't need to worry about protocols, machines or other barriers.
The solution required is much more difficult than hiring a supposed or currently neutral body (composed of individual, corruptible humans). One possibility is transparency, but that comes with almost as many problems as an audit - maybe more. The best solution would be a decentralization of political parties - the more individual political units with autonomous resources, the harder it is to divert resources at any one choke point. But, and apologies for Godwinning my own self, that comes with the problem of minority extremists gaining access to undue political power, as happened in Germany with the Nazi party.
Another solution which could avoid, or at least contain, the Nazi party problem, might be dissolution of the US Federal government and reorganization of individual states into smaller Federations (even monostate Federations). Abe Lincoln was dead set against this, even if the Founders weren't, but these days I don't think there's much chance of a US Federation starting a slave empire. Obviously the problem here is implementation, though.
In any case, I expect Bush to be able to stand on his own. The fact that he couldn't face the comission on his own two feet (metaphorically) that he is not in charge. He is not a leader.
Here is your reference to Bush saying that God speaks through him: Intelligencer Journal and the Lancaster New Era, on July 16, 2004. . Here's the Lancaster Online archive. It requires Javascript.
I don't care about Bush's personal beliefs. I only care about the constituencies he panders to when he creates policies for our country.
Why would you vote for this failure again? He blew the war on terror before 9/11 and brought us into Iraq solely as the behest of his neo-con buddies in their quest for world domination, while claiming it was related to the war on terror. He hasn't come clean about his national guard record, nor his history of drug use. While Kerry was fighting in Vietnam, he was having Senior pull strings to get him out of his military obligation. Hasn't he demonstrated to you that he is unfit to lead our country?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
That's basically it. They do have a tendency to change a little from election to election so in one election a tick for the first preference and numbers for the rest are acceptable, but in the next election it might not be). All that the votes really require is a clear order of preference on who to elect. If you can determine that, it's formal. Upper house votes are even harder to make informal due to the dual-voting ability (above the line per-party or below the line per-candidate).
As for postal votes, yes the system is pretty good. When the envelope comes it, it gets your name marked on the roll as having voted. The envelopes are then stored until election day. At that point the envelopes are opened in a big pile at the AEC office in the electorate and all votes placed into a big pile. The pile is then sorted according to the normal procedure. There's very little chance of connecting the envelope with the vote of the voter. Of course, there's always a half dozen eagle-eyed scrutineers watching your every move too to make sure you don't accidently loose a vote or any other nefarious thing, particularly in the highly marginal seats.
Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
Have you noticed that you have a strange, unaccoutable desire to nuke your Linux install and put XP on your computer?
When you see a picture of Bill Gates, do you find yourself wanting to grovel?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Because people's home PCs are exactly the kind of secure platforms from which any good democracy should determine its future leaders.
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?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Bush "won" Florida by 537 votes. Tens of thousands were turned away at the polls. That's not what I call a "just fine" election.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
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.
I would agree that the US is, historically, the "most stable" democracy. The only large-scale, contemporary (i.e. not counting the ancients), early contenders would be the British and the French (yes, the Swiss, but they're not large-scale).
The British have had a sort-of representative government (Parliament) for, well, a long time -- many hundreds of years (perhaps you could count starting at the Magna Carta, in some sense). However, for the great bulk of that time, Britain has been only weakly democratic -- only the privileged could vote, and the monarchy exerted very strong power. Gradually, moving toward the end of the 1800's, then through the early 1900's, Britain evolved toward what we would today consider to be "true democracy". And it was a very stable transition. No nasty revolutions, civil wars, etc.
By contrast, the US dived head-first into something close to full-out democracy, over 200 years ago. One could say about 100 years earlier than the British. Yes, there were no votes for slaves or women -- but still, the "common man" ruled, which was dramatic and new -- truly radical! With the exception of one major crisis -- the Civil War -- the country has been remarkably stable. One could offer up reasons (e.g. the "splendid isolation" of North America), but could just as well offer up uniquely destabilizing challenges (massive influx of heterogeneous immigrants). For whatever reasons, the fact is that the US democratic system has been very stable for over 200 years. No other (large) country can really compete with that.
Look at the French, to get a glimpse of a possible "alternative history" -- to see how unstable the process of democratization can be. First the trauma of the French Revolution. Then the Napoleonic Wars. Then continuing backsliding with Napoleon III. Or look at Russia! Just absolute _chaos_ in the Russian Revolution, followed by decades of tyrrany.
The process of the "common man" taking over power from the privileged elite is inherently a traumatic one. It can go very, very badly, and take a long time to stabilize. Truly, the American experience stands out from the crowd.
For your information, the U.S. has allready admitted to having large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear weapons, ready for use. The U.S. and Russia also keep reference samples of biological agents for use in counteracting biological weapons.
You may be interested to know that there are actually inspection/monitoring systems set up to monitor test ban treaties and such. So yes, the U.S. might be inspected, but I'm not sure it would be by the U.N. but rather by other states.
The U.N. Headquarters is situated in the larges city in the U.S. The open nature of the U.S. society, and the seismiological and radiological monitoring stations around the world help to reveal any test of a nuclear weapon on the planet. If I recall correctly, there is allready in place an agreement not to use nuclear weapons in space. New nuclear powers and any alien governments haven't signed that treaty.
Not specifically related to WMD, is the Open Skies Treaty, which allows other countries to do reconnaissance flights over the U.S.
(The moderators said this was Interesting, so you get a matter-of-fact reply.)
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
This is in no way meant to be a flame or troll post, but I am very curious as to why the US does not have compulsory voting.
I am sure there are reasons for not having it, but I cannot think of them.
A dream is good. A plan is better.
If I'm in florida, and I vote for Gore, along with 49.9% of my fellow floridians, how is it fair that nearly 50% of us have our vote count for crap?
If I'm in a state full right wing whackos (as I am), I might as well not vote, because vote or no vote, my say is worth exactly CRAP.
Explain to me how that is the best system? How is a system in which the majority does not, in fact rule, even a reasonable democracy?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The 2204 election will be challenged in a court of law if Bush wins. The Democrats are already planning to do this.
I was at a party last night, and being in San Fransisco, it was assumed I was a loyal Kerry supporter. So they invited me to a fundraiser next week for a legal challenge fund. "For every dollar we raise, that's one more dollar we can use in the campaign instead of having to save for the challenge." This was the first I had ever heard of this fund, so I inquired more about it.
To many this fund may come as no surprise. But to a lot of us it's a shocking display of politics at its worst. Active fund raising parties are being held NOW for funds that will almost certainly be used in a challenge! It was made clear to me that a legal challenge WILL be issued if Bush wins the election, and it might even be issued before the polls eve close. Florida is the normal target state, but other states were mentioned as well.
p.s. I am not a Bush supporter. When I explained to the inviters that I was a Libertarian, they didn't care, because they assumed I was going to vote for Kerry anyway. When I explained further that I still wasn't going to vote for him, they started looking at me like something dead the cat drug in.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
For clarity:
Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it? The best I can do is " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; " And allowing a parent to send their child to a religious school with public subsidies neither establishes a religion nor prohibits the free excercise of any religion.
And regardless, that doesn't apply to non-religious schools, which I willa ssume you address with your other points.
Private schools have less accountability
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents. Private schools aren't successful because people HAVE to go there, they have to operate to the satisfaction of the parents. And under NCL has a host of accountability issues they have to satisfy in order to be eligible for NCLB vouchers.
Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)
Not under NCLB. Good try. But even if they did, how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)
The DC run is a trial, and if successful, will be spread out to the entire poulation. And your second assertion is false. Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Say DC has 10,000 students at 12k is $120,000,000 1000 use funded vouchers of 7,500 to go ot private schools brinign the totals to 9,000 and $112,500,000. That's an average of $12,500 per students. So now we have a better funded school, with less 10% less crowding and 10% less demand for materials.
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand. Many schools have tuition far below the voucher level, so even a raise in tuition would go unnoticed to the parents. With the increased demand at a fixed price, schools will fill that gap. Using very poor economic rhetoric does very little to show you've thought about this at all.
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.
The difference between
Wow. I guess you get to call Kerry a douchebag but nobody else is allowed to call Bush one huh?
Typical republinazi. They can dish it out but they can't take it. Pussies.
As for me I think the days of the peaceful liberals are over. It's time we adopted the republitard tactics. Yes that means dragging them behind cars and crucifiying them alongside the highways.
evil is as evil does
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.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
This is the best voting system I have found : instant runoff voting Check it out.
He definitely is in near-catatonic withdrawal. Out of his depth.
And keep holding your breath. That may help. Are you suggesting that it's not a problem when the CIC freezes when informed of an attack? Somehow I don't think I'd hear that argument if the Other Candidate had been in office.
The CIC is supposed to lead, even when his underlings don't tell him what to do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Alcee Hastings.
Yes THAT Alcee hastings. The one that got removed from the bench for conspiracy and bribery, IIRC in the 1980's.
He is a Democrat, and a political activist.
I doubt we will see any impartiality from the OCSE given whom they have chosen as the leadership here. The Republicans are probably already getting dossiers together to discredit this guy.
They should have at least come up with a couple of impartial Europeans (say, Scotland, Denmark) instead of a corruptable US politician.
SO no matter what they find out, having that guy associated with it provides any Republican an automatic "attack the attacker" bias claim defense.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Iceland has had a parliament since the 10th century.
Have a look at other histories besides American ones to see which countries have had democratic institutions for a period of time.
"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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Let the courts decide which field belongs to which candidate
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
The dictionary definitions of "democracy" and "republic" both apply to the US. In fact, they apply to just about any Western democracy.
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.]
er.. yeah.. why AREN'T those who are out of prison eligible to vote?
:D
oh, i bet the republicans would be really against that.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Really.
So what does, "We won't forget this.", mean exactly? Next you'll invade Aberdeen to get access to (what's left) of north sea oil in a bid to liberate the Scots from the yoke of Blair the dictator?
You're a funny man. Go militia boy go!
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
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
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:
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.**
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.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
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?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
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?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
If the President represents the largest possible number of Americans, that takes us one step closer to the infamous "tyrrany of the majority" that plagues democratic systems. What the President ought to do is represent the largest possible number of cultural and social groups. This is somewhat approximated by the geographical system: Originally that was a very good approximation, as travel was difficult and so the regions differed greatly; these days it's not as good an approximation, but still better than none.
This is the same reason countries get one vote each in the UN, not votes equal to their populations. If that were the case, the US would get one vote, all of Europe combined would get two votes, and China would get four votes. But that's not how it works, because the UN is not intended to represent all people equally, but all nations. Similarly, the US government should represent all groups within the US, not all US people equally.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
I'd note that it's worked for us for longer than the other democracies around the world have BEEN democracies.
Oh, Switzerland beats the U.S. hands down with about 700 years of democracy. Not a perfect one, and surely with lots of regularia during its history, which would make it look quite undemocratic today. But this is even so with the U.S. democracy, which had to overcome lots of obstacles and undemocratic sidesteps until it came where it is now.
> It seems the US is quickly being the only country that is inclusive of its immigrants, while Europe is maintains its historical racist policies.
Racist? It's not racist, it is another rule, not related to a race whatsoever.
Meanwhile I do prefer our French law, which allows anybody born in France to become French, as you suggest.
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
Not all European countries, but many of them have laws that if you are "ethnically" of that country's background, you can claim citizenship, but if you are not, it is much more difficult. That was what the example of "ethnic Germans" coming back from the USSR was. Similarly, I can claim Greek citizenship if I wanted to move there, simply because I'm of Greek ancestry, but a "non-ethnically-Greek" immigrant can't. Basically the European version of Israel's "law of return".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The USA lags behind that on both counts, although some states (Wyoming) predate it. Most european countries also took longer to extend the vote to all adults, e.g. in Great Britain certain occupations didn't get the vote until later.
Apparently punishing criminals is valued higher than democracy around there.
The Irish constitutional amendment only requires that the parents of children be legally resident in the country in order for the children to be citizens. Basically, they got fed up of 8 and 9-months pregnant women with no connection with Ireland arriving at their airports and then claiming residence rights throughout the EU as the parents of Irish citizens.
I know we can all go into a big flam^H^H^H^Hdebate about the state of american elections and the positions many americans are taking behind the democratic and republican parties.
g en/18247440/
/. (I will likely post this again since this article is almost dead).
But we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I searched my browser history a bit and found this gem:
http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleverin
(click the link under "Video" on the right side)
It's a dutch documentary, but over 75% is in english and subtitled in dutch. It's a great piece with a balanced view on democracy in this time and I feel a lot of Americans can learn a few things about the European perspective that you can find a lot here on
A U.S. organization is seeking volunteers to help monitor elections in cities where there is historic concern about voter disenfranchisement: http://www.electionprotection.org/. They're seeking volunteers, especially lawyers, law students and clergy, to become trained and help with the effort. I'm not connected with the organization, I just think it's a good idea.
Odd how many of those European countries accept more immigrants per head than the US with all those 'racist' attitudes...
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!)
;-)
... and that so many of us are shocked to find it isn't the first time we venture outside of our borders. We are spoonfed appallingly manipulative and patently untrue propoganda, while being kept uninformed of events in the rest of the world, to such a degree that my non-American friends who visit are shocked when they see the (lack of) information we get.
Damn unamerican foreigners!
Our Democracy (tm) is the Best in the World (tm). The System Works (tm), and as the Leader of the Free World (tm), Our President (tm) is Staying the Course (tm) in important matters such as Family Values (tm), a Womans Right Not to Choose (tm), the War on Terror (tm), the March of Democracy in Iraq (tm), and other Pro Life (tm) measures.
I know we have the best democracy. I was told so in grammar school, numerous times, for the first 18 years of my life. Plus the TV says so.
Who are you to question such irrefutable facts, you damn foreigner!
Alas, the above should be funny, but aside from the gratuitious trademark symbols, it is appallingly close to exactly what happens here in America. I remember being spoon fed Amercan political myth, particularly about the founding of the country, until I was ready to vomit it up, year after year after year after year. "Social Studies" in America is one big propoganda fest, with history taught from around 1776 through the civil war -- if you have a smart class that can move through the material quickly -- and the next year you start all over again, back at 1776.
We are told by the media we are the best in everything, all the time. Is it any wonder anyone who hasn't been outside of the country believes this nonsense to be true
American people by and large aren't bad folks, and are generally well meaning (Republican nationalist swagger and Bush's unconscionable warmongering nothwithstanding). But we are all indoctrinated every day with large amounts appallingly bad data, and I'm afraind in the tatters of our democracy you really are still stuck with the Garbabe In, Garbage Out truism, which is why this election is neck and neck despite the behavior of the incumbant government over the past four years.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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 ?
Well, those congressmen don't seem to be as confident about that as you, since they asked for observers.
Nice use of adjectives. Have you considered a career in propaganda ?
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...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Hate? What hate? What for? If the EU was hating the Turks, there would be no more Istambul, just a radioactive desert. Stop using tough words like that if you cannot imagine what they imply.
Like how the European Union not allowing Turkey into the EU because it is not of Christian faith.
Uh? Has it occured to you that EU citizens may wish to share common cultural roots together, that many would appreciate if they could feel like being a EU citizen and no mere members of a mere free trade zone? I personnaly am very much ill at ease with Turkey joining the EU for this reason. I fear there may be too many discrepancies between us, too many reasons not to build anything together.
And if Turkey is in Europe, then why not Russia, Algeria, Mongolia?? Remember Attila? We share something with China, for sure!
And there are Turks who feel this would be foolish too. I met some.
And now, should we Europeans associate with Turkey: of course, peace and prospecrity for all!
I am not Remy Mouton, unfortunately: http://remy.mouton.free.fr/art/
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 ?
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.
Actually, the real crime in it was that the job of purging the rolls was subcontracted out to a private company with obvious ties to the political party that won in Florida. Also, Katherine Harris, the head of the Florida Election Commission, who is a big time Republican once stated out loud that, "Gore should have been nice to me and he would have won the election."
Anything here smell fishy about this who debacle?
The US system needs an overhaul. It needs no electoral college. It needs overall popular vote. The surprisingly terrible turnout mostly comes from a system where if you were a democrat in Indiana (a state that has been Republican for 40 years) like me, why vote? It doesn't matter.
That is why there is crappy turnout.
I live in a state where my vote won't matter for president... but I am still hitting the polls anyway, so I can clown people when he sends us into Iran or another nation, and people are shocked.
Nobody learns from "mistakes" when they arent mistakes in the first place.
Take this lovely example of manipulating the democratic process: Jeb Bush is ONCE AGAIN using the same felon-list he did four years ago- the one they hired an outside company to sloppily produce to have the widest range of (mostly african-american, democrat-voting) names match those on the list, so that every T. Jackson (for example) in the state was flagged as a felon. This is intentional voter intimidation and is a BIG problem.
No but they can Nuke California...
Yes but that's not what the parent was talking about. He was talking about the ability to project power. Dropping thermonuclear bombs on cities isn't power projection -- it's Armageddon.
And if you want to talk about nuclear weapons then China doesn't rate as a superpower in that regard either. They do not have a large enough number of nuclear delivery vehicles (i.e: ICBMs) that could survive a first strike. In fact their ICBM force is a joke compared to any Western power or Russia. Thus they do not have a true deterrence.
Deterrence is based upon having enough nuclear weapons to completely devastate your enemies if they ever try to take them away from you. The United States and Russia have this ability. The UK and France have it (by virtue of having a hard to kill submarine force -- not by virtue of having thousands of warheads and hundreds of launchers). Israel might have it (not against the big-four but certainly against her Muslim neighbors -- they can't disarm Israel). China, Pakistan and India do not.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?