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...
"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."
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
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!
"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.
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...
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 :)
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?
Countries like Switzerland & Australia view the 2000 presidential election as a farce
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
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.
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?
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.
The 2000 election was not a screwup, it was a coin toss.
The day we start deciding presidents based on chance is a sad day indeed.
Neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote in either the nation or in Florida. In fact, in both the differences were statistically insignificant.
This is a load of bull. Gore DID win the majority vote. Bush DID win the majority of electoral college points. Bush ARGUABLY won the majority vote in Florida. "Statistically insignificant" is not applicable. This is an election, and in such a thing if it comes to it one single vote in millions WILL mean the difference between winning and losing. If it's 20 million to 20 million one then the 20 million one wins.
There was no way to resolve the issue without one side feeling cheated.
There would have been no reason to feel cheated had there been no controversy in Florida. If there wasn't then all the rules would have been followed and the winner would have won fair and square. This, however, was not the case. I won't go into details of the issues in Florida here as they aren't really relevant other than to say there was very good reason for both sides to raise hell.
Either way, in the event of a true tie there are proper ways to handle the tie breaker, and the supreme court is not it.
I believe you are also missing the point of this organization monitoring the presedential election.
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.
Your hyperbole is misplaced and oddly uninformed. Though many people are severely unhappy with the Patriot Act and the signing of Campaign Finance Reform, most are quite capable of distinguishing erosion of rights with the installation of some sort of Orwellian dictatorship.
Perhaps you would be willing to expound upon bill C.215 in Canada which literally turns thoughts and words into federal crimes. Or perhaps the phenomenon in Finland where it is completely legitimate for political parties to be outright banned from elections by the government because they are deemed too extreme. Or maybe a short essay on the United Nations where nations that actively practice slavery and advocate extermination of certain ethnic groups are part of the Security Council. Or perhaps a well-considered exposition on how Nelson Mandela, liberal-champion-extraordinaire openly supports the genocidal outlook of Robert Mugabe.
I gather you will not do any of these things. They are, of course contrary to the liberal outlook of the world, where only the US and the 'whites' who control it are truly evil. It is far easier to buy into the myth that the US is some horrible power hungry machine intent on controlling the world, despite the obvious and overwhelming evidence that should it decide to do just that, it could do so effectively unopposed.
Signed,
The American People not quite as susceptible to sensationalist views.
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.
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.
if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I haven't done the math myself (and I doubt you have either) but generally speaking, the states with the highest population (i.e. the most electoral votes) generally go Democrat. If you apportioned electors based on percentage of the vote in the state, I think it's more than likely that big Republican gains in states like California (45 electors) would offset the smaller states.
If you aportioned electors based on congressional districts, with the winner of the state picking up the bonus 2, I think it would be a Republican landslide.
Just a thought.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
Do you honestly believe that what went on in Florida was the only scandal in the election? No, there were scandals all over the country. People buying votes, people results called early, "Nader-trader" sites, etc. Counting votes is not an exact science. Thus, one half of a percent, or 500,000 votes, is statistically insignificant.
"If we had a direct popular vote, or if electors were allocated by percentage of votes won in each state rather than the winner take all system Gore would be president today."
So? If our elections were decided by the candidates by a battle to the death Arnold Schwarzenegger would be president. Whats your point?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
Let's see:
104,338,854 votes recorded.
If we are using equipment that averages 98% combined adjusted accuracy (undervotes, overvotes, missed votes, mutliple votes, malfunctions, etc) than it means that there is a legitimate range of 2,086,777 of votes that between an exact tie and a stastical tie.
The margin was in fact 543,895 votes. Even if the accuracy was 99% - some counties do have machines with that level of accuracy - the vote range would have to exceed 1,043,388 to be certain.
In Florida, the margin was so much closer than the margin in the entire country that it is impossible, and remain impossible, to determine what the true will of the voters was with 100% confidence.
The fact is that there is no voting technology currently used anywhere that can collect 6 million votes in one 12-hour day and tabulate them with a 100% accuracy rate.
If this country was a direct democracy Gore would have won, but he would have suffered the same pall of illegimaticy that Bush suffers from. Why?
Because you cannot in good science and conscience declare that the will of the people was for Gore or Bush to be President in 2000. The equipment does not support that conclusion. There were many other states that were almost as close as Florida.
Regardless of the form of election - our current system or a direct democracy, you cannot register a valid election when the number of votes between the two top candidates is below the margin of error for the equipment in use.
Time to grow up and face it.
This is 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.
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 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
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.
It is not rocket science, and with at least four people and two (usually opposing) agendas involved, the chance of a 'parity error' getting past is lower that the chance of a parity error read off of the RAM inside your computer. 100% ? Maybe not, but certainly more that four nines. Your suggestion of a 99% accuracy rate from machines is a red herring.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
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.
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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
Because people's home PCs are exactly the kind of secure platforms from which any good democracy should determine its future leaders.
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.
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!
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!
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
This is the best voting system I have found : instant runoff voting Check it out.
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.
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!
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.
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.
The electoral college isn't the only solution to this problem, it's just the one we have. We can solve the problem in other ways.
Take as an example a voting method that involves ranking the candidates. So each states uses this voting method to aggregate an entire rank of candidates, and then each state gets to cast a vote based on this rank. You could do away with the electoral college completely and still ensure that states get a say as a group, and the minorities in the group get their say. Under this system, let's say the person in your state that made the 4th rank places second in two other states. Now the chances have gone up that he will get elected, and there are (in three states, at least) a significant amount of people that would accept him as president. Under our current system, he's toast.
As long as you filter the votes at the state level before passing them on, you've solved the problem the electoral college solves. How you do it is another issue as well. The simple fact is, under the electoral college there are a number of states that have marginal influence on the election, because even when added together they still represent less than the required number of electoral votes needed. That's why New Mexico is never a battleground state. It just doesn't matter, they're only three votes. Texas, on the other hand, would be a battleground state (except it usually votes republican).
I like the fact that the electoral college means the president has to lie to most states instead of just lying in CA and NY, but the electoral college isn't the only way to solve thsi problem. IN any case, the Electorate can certainly use better reports than they're getting. I mean, right now they get 40% like Bush, 39% like Kerry, 10% like Nader, etc. How about if they got , instead, 40% like Bush, most of them like Kerry too. 39% like Kerry, but most of them hate Bush. Choosing Kerry would make 86% of your voters happy, whereas choosing Bush would only satisfy 40% of your voters. Under our current system, Bush wins because 40 Voting is all about reporting, and we need to first understand that our current system of voting does not provide enough information to make the best possible decision on how to best represent the people. Then we can work on solving that problem. When it's solved, then we can see if the electoral college itself is broken, or if it works fine when you put the right reports into the hands of the electors.
Like what I said? You might like my music
> 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 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.
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...
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.