Slashdot Mirror
Texas Attorney General Warns International Election Observers
First time accepted submitter mescobal writes "Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott warned international election observers not to come closer than 100 feet from a polling place; otherwise, they could be subject to criminal prosecution. The warning was addressed to a group of international observers who intend to monitor polls. The OSCE, an UN affiliated organization of observers, was concerned about voter ID issues among other things. From the article: '“The Texas Election Code governs anyone who participates in Texas elections — including representatives of the OSCE,” Abbott wrote. “The OSCE’s representatives are not authorized by Texas law to enter a polling place. It may be a criminal offense for OSCE’s representatives to maintain a presence within 100 feet of a polling place’s entrance. Failure to comply with these requirements could subject the OSCE’s representatives to criminal prosecution for violating state law.”'"
Chuck "Walker" Norris himself will watch over this and will roundhouse-kick you until you learn to respect democracy!
If that's what the law states, then I'm glad the Texas AG is doing his job and upholding it since that the law that the democratically elected legislature passed. Additionally, why should there be unsupervised "observers" standing around a polling place and potentially intimidating voters? There are already plenty of limits to regulate campaigning in and around polling places, and I see no reason why unelected "observers" should be given more access to polling places that legitimately registered voters are.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Over time, this principle has been reinforced: the more land a government oversees, and the more remote it is from a local area, the more likely it is to misunderstand the specific needs of that locality.
It's bad enough that the federal government makes laws that might work on the coasts but ignore the needs of people in the flyover states, but trust the UN to treat Texas like New York or Brussels and thus completely miss the point.
I'm not calling for Texas Secession yet, but it's tempting some days... and not just for Texas. Washington and New York are too far from most places to understand local needs.
Surely anyone working for the UN qualifies for DIP don't they?
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
...of election officials to fix the vote.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
I love how Americans go around the world telling other countries how to do "fair" elections, when they can't even following their own laws and do fair elections themselves.
Tell me again who should have won the last election?
The world looks to America to set a good example, and America leads by example.
It's a terrible tragedy that these nutjob far right wing extremists have managed to compromise politics so badly. And that they want to win so badly, they'll obliterate America's good name in the world to do so.
And it isn't just implementing blatantly racist and illegal policies to purge 'enemy' voters either. It's setting up stings and other deceit to try and prop up their extremist loony Right lies that liberals are engaging in voter fraud.
Somebody tell me why there isn't a completely independent, non-partisan election agency in the US anyway. Only a COMPLETE fucking idiot would let political appointees run elections. It's akin to putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse.
In terms of elections we now have less credibility than Venezuela.
It took real effort to break down confidence in the fairness of U.S. elections within 10 years.
USA a banana republic in all but name.
Go team USA, make us proud.
Janez LenarÄiÄ, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), stated that "The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.â (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96639).
Where does this obligation come from?
...The irony.
Moral obligation to fairness. A concept we're forgetting by the day.
Seriously what do they have to hide? If you're worried about them tampering with ballots keep one of your highly armed cops with them at all times.
Where does this obligation come from?
As a signing member of OSCE, the US must comply to the treaty's terms. This is irrespective of what Texas' AG quacks, since the legalese in international treaties supersedes national laws where applicable -- or at least that's how it's supposed to work anyway.
Good question. I imagine there should be some OSCE charter that the US has signed, but I can't find it. Their website is difficult to navigate.
In PA police are not allowed within 100 feet of a polling place unless voting or responding to a call.
yea not like thugs standing outside a polling place holding bats.
ruled by the UN and we still send observers because the elections might be rigged (aka: the people might vote for the Taliban)
The only way I can respond to "this isn't Chicago" is that you're right... it's the right doing the intimidation rather than the left.
Both are wrong.
The obligation comes from being a participatory member of the organization.
Son. This is Texas. The fix has been in for the past sixty years. Just because the machine doesn't call itself a "machine" doesn't change the effect. Just because the machine changes party does not mean it changes its stripe.
-
The Gore election was fixed, but it was done way before the vote was taken. There were massive voter purges in Florida done by the Jeb Bush administration. The number of Democratic voters taken out was several times Bush's margin of victory.
This is well documented (with REAL FACTS!) but it isn't talked about.
I was under the impression that the 100 foot radius (in California--Ianal) was created to prevent campaigners from trying to sway voters to their side and prevent the ensuing emotional chaos created from interfering with the voting process when the voters were making a decision at the polling booth. Witnesses, OTOH, can be anyone, for whatever purpose, watching and learning about the voting process in the voting area as long as it's peaceable and reasonably practical. (An example: students not of voting age.)
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why
a nice restaurant you seem to have there, too bad if something nasty happened to it...
This isn't chicago. Taken your bullies with clubs or clipboards at least to the parking lot. Our constitution in Texas keeps us free from harassment while voting and we will be keeping it like that.
The law must represent their people. For good or worse.
Texas is a joke, we should give it back to mexico where it belongs. Remember the Alamo!!!!
It should be noted that they did NOTHING along these lines when the Black Panthers did what they did. However, the same bunch that's doing the asking is the one that allowed that to be done and nothing to be done about it. They've caught 30k fraudulent registrations in Houston, again done by the same bunch doing the asking for this. Most of the purges were not legit registrations. Even much of that 20% that people were ranting on and on about.
Ask yourself something. Why? It's not to ensure the vote if you look at the facts. This is another ploy and Abbott's right about this. If it were a Federal agent instead of the OSCE, they'd get arrested as well- if you legally don't have authority (Treaties carry the same force as the Constitution, but do NOT trump it... Don't forget that this isn't a power delegated to the Federal Government but to the States by the Constitution...) you CAN get arrested by the group that does.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
From accepting the OSCE rules when the US became a member? (Which in return allowed to send observers into countries that wouldn't have been accessible otherwise. We're talking about the late 70's)
bickerdyke
then there shouldn't be a problem with letting people observe the process to make sure nothing funny is going on.
Right?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Our constitution in Texas keeps us free from harassment while voting and we will be keeping it like that.
Some dictators might have said the same thing...
Don't forget about that civil war that is coming if Obama wins.
Can we just skip ahead to the magical point in the future where the recounts are done, the lawsuits are complete, and the insanity around the election dies down so we return to life as usual?
The Texas AG may have read the law, but all it would take is a sign-off on allowing the International Commission to observe the voting and results tabulation for themselves.
All they need to do now is put up stands a hundred feet away, with signs like "Make sure your votes are counted correctly!" and poll them for certain primary elections.
It's a pity when corrupt bureaucrats get nailed doing what they do best - screwing with "the people" in favor of "the corporations".
It'll be fun to watch when UN forces step in to manhandle the corrupt Texan authorities :)
Maybe Gore should have won his own state, thus rendering Florida and any alleged shenanigans there irrelevant. If you can't convince the voters who know you best to send you to the White House.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is precisely why we have a division of power between the federal governments and the state. States, for example, are able to set their own early voting and absentee rules for their own elections (although the federal government may arbitrate if someone sues the state about these). It makes sense -- the absentee voting needs of Texas, which will have temperate weather during the election, are different than Alaska, where residents may be snowed in on election day. Another example would be subsidies for energy efficiency, which would be better spent on heat pumps in Texas, gas furnaces in Alaska.
What bothers me about not-quite-secessionists like you is that you like to apply state purview to issues that have nothing to do with locality, especially issues where you personally disagree with the federal government's stance. Are healthcare needs best left to the states? I suppose work related injuries vary somewhat by location, but lets face it, people get sick and die of cancer no matter where they live. May gays marry? While rural folks tend to have a different view than urbanites on this, I really don't see how it has anything to do with geographic location. Yet these are two issues conservatives seem to cite most when jacking off about State's Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
The Republicans bellyache about election fraud this election season, but whenever there is a discrepancy, they seem to be the ones perpetrating the election problems, in news items small and large across the country recently.
They also seem concerned about our deficit and fiscal responsibility when it comes to the Democrats. But it is always Republican regimes that lower taxes... AND INCREASE SPENDING.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast
More psychological projection.
So from now on, when I see a Republican complaint about some sort of bad behavior, my first thought is going to be "so this is what this psychotic group is planning on doing now."
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
While there may be no provision for outside organizations, in many states there are provisions for campaigns to designate authorized observers. I've done that in Massachusetts (I was marking off the names of the voters who voted on my own list so that we would not call them in the afternoon get-out-the-vote campaign). Assuming there are similar rules in Texas, it just takes one candidate to designate the observers as official representatives.
Grandstanding akin to calling a press conference to state the sky is blue.
FTA: “I have specifically informed the Texas team that Chapter 61 of the Texas Election Code would not allow them into actual polling places, and they understood this limitation,” per the election authority.
So the observers were told of the limitation, accepted it, and understood it, but the AG in an effort to bolster his own image couldn't resist the urge to make a scene.
Texas as usual.
If it were a Federal agent instead of the OSCE, they'd get arrested as well- if you legally don't have authority (Treaties carry the same force as the Constitution, but do NOT trump it... Don't forget that this isn't a power delegated to the Federal Government but to the States by the Constitution...) you CAN get arrested by the group that does.
Actually, international treaties do trump the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
I'm sure the Texas AG considered the wording of the OSCE and determined that the treaty did not conflict with Texas Law.
Abbot can stuff his dick back in his pants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_v._Hylton
The case itself: http://preview.tinyurl.com/9es2mes (shortened, because it's a google books link)
--
BMO
... for elections observers to be sent to Afghanistan.
Oh Yes They Do
I've done OSCE election missions, and if I proposed going to Afghanistan my wife would most certainly have something to say about how dangerous it is.
You're a joke. Move to Venezuela or wherever it is that you think has a superior system. We don't want you here, and you clearly don't want to be here.
North Korea's Kim Il Sung? Lawful too.
What I want to know, though, is if Venezuela's elections were banned to international observers to a distance of 100 feet, or does the US election fear international scrutiny of their process more than Venezuela?
If so, what do they have to hide?
I wonder if the Texas AG will prosecute all the people who show up to vote and bring their unauthorized kids along with them, within 100 feet of the polling place? I wonder, if the Texas AG will prosecute the media who get within 100 feet of the polling place? I wonder if the Texas AG, will prosecute the people who violate Chapter 61 of the Texas Election Code by loitering after voting? If the answer to those questions in "No," then what are the reasons to threaten prosecution of the OSCE with prosecution for observing the election? If Uganda did that, the US would be up in arms shouting that the OSCE is to ensure fair elections. Oh, I guess I answered my own question.
SCOTUS case law has held that treaties do not trump the US Constitution. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution says:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
It's simple enough to understand when you parse it out:
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Federal laws and treaties made under the authority of the Constitution have supremacy over state laws and state constitutions.
State judges are bound to respect the aforementioned supremacy.
The bolded part is particularly relevant and is the origin of the case law that says treaties can't trump the Constitution. The US Senate could not ratify a treaty that changed the structure of the Federal Government, or negated the 1st or 2nd amendments. Such things could only be done via the amendment process, which requires the permission of 3/4th of the States, not simply a super-majority in the US Senate.
This is all moot though, because an earlier poster quoted the OSCE treaty, which contains a clause that says their monitoring efforts have to comply with local law. In New York State (where I was a poll worker for nine years) they would have to register themselves as poll-watchers with the local Board of Elections, otherwise we'd be well within our rights to kick them out. Poll-watchers have to be affiliated with a political candidate and/or party, and there are limits to how many can be present in each polling place.
Of course, in practice we wouldn't care, provided they didn't try to influence voters or disrupt our operations. I had the media in my polling place on multiple occasions, without poll watching certificates, and I never did anything about it because they stayed out of the way and didn't harass my voters. Usually they were there to shoot background footage for stories about the election or the like.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If that's what the law states, then I'm glad the Texas AG is doing his job and upholding it since that the law that the democratically elected legislature passed.
Ah - but if they ban international, UN-sanctioned observers from monitoring the election how can anyone have confidence that they are "democratically elected" as you claim? Afterall in the aftermath of the 2000 US presidential election one of your former presidents, Carter, claimed that the US presidential election rules would not satisfy the current UN rules for a true democracy and continues to criticise the way the US holds elections even today. So if your former leaders are not convinced by the process why should the rest of us have any confidence in it if you refuse to let anyone observe it?
The fact that Obama and Romney are the only viable choices is enough of an indication that it's rigged.
As for UN observation -- who cares? We support international observation of elections in other nations. When it comes to us, it's only fair-play to say "sure, have at it". In fact, having nations observe each other's elections on-the-ground seems like it can only be a good thing. Certainly not going to get my panties in a twist all "durp durp murkin soil durp durp fer'ners durp!". *shrug*
Took me a bit to find, but OSCE is not a formal treaty, therefore it is not U.S. law, and cannot legally be held above any law in any State. OSCE is a political commitment. AKA, it's pretty much just some trash some folks signed to make them look good.
Taking a position like this on public voting is as much an admission that there will be voter fraud in this election as anything I've heard at this point.
It is unfortunate, because I live in Texas and hate what this represents about the state (and the image it projects to the rest of the world about America).
"There *IS* no patch for stupidity" -www.sqlsecurity.com
Telling citizens they won't be berated in a voting place is not intimidation. If you think it is I think you have your definitions screwy.
Please. This is Texas. Texas doesnt need to rig the votes to swing right. Its one of the redest states in the union.
The facts here is that (A) The UN can send observers, but under the international agreement they may not violate local laws. (B) Texas laws require that observers register to be observers, and that only people eligible to vote at the polling place may register to be observers at that polling place.
I don't see how either (A) or (B) can be considered unreasonable. What I do see is the unreasonable insinuation that Texas needs to intimidate voters.
People from my State find these hyper-reactions to Voter ID laws hilarious, because my State has had Voter ID laws since the 50's and nobody gave a shit then and nobody gives a shit now because its a very blue state. Its Connecticut. Over half the States have Voter ID laws, but the only time anyone claims that there is a problem with these laws is when its a red state. Hilarious.
"His name was James Damore."
I suggest that we vote in some fashion that it's clear to everyone how people are voting. This could be done by voting for one candidate here, and the other over there. You could put up a huge counter that is observably working in accordance with the vote button(s) that get pressed (you could literally watch the counter as you press the button to vote). This counter could be sen from each candidate's place of voting. Why don't we open-vote like this? The best defense for it is that people are scared to vote unless it's a secret, because they're scared of getting lynched, as if it's still 1412.
ONLY in relation to powers relegated to the Federal Gov't -- NOT with powers solely reserved to the States.
The 10th Amendment limits the scope of the Supremacy Clause.
Elections are run by the States, not the Feds -- except in D.C. and other Federal areas.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
TThis is well documented (with REAL FACTS!) but it isn't talked about.
But not cited, hmm. Your "REAL FACTS" seems to be something you invented.
And we have Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott trying to hide the fact that he is supporting voter fraud?
What is he afraid of?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Most states have this law, and it's usually several times more than Texas's 100 feet. Even next door in Louisiana, it's 200. Your constitutional protection from voter intimidation is pretty weak.
First you say
then you link to a wikipedia article where the first sentence reads:
Care to explain your thought process a bit further?
I was under the impression that the 100 foot radius (in California--Ianal) was created to prevent campaigners from trying to sway voters to their side
In which case surely the law should be "no campaigning" within ~30m of a polling station. Since official observers are not campaigning this would not apply to them. If the Texas law really applies to "anyone who participates in Texas elections" then it must presumably have numerous exemptions so that the candidates get to vote, the election staff can vote and so the election staff running the station can be there to run it. Seems amazingly complicated if all you want to do is ban campaigning.
Just because something is made legal does not make it right. And I'm not referring to the Texas law here. Outside nations should have NO rights regarding USA elections, period.
Some have argued here to the effect, "If there are not observers how are we sure people are democratically elected?" Uhmm, that is the job of CITIZENS of the USA to watch for these things, NOT outside nations. If the citizens of the USA are not vigilant and acting to ensure a fair election, then outside observers aren't going to help.
I know this will get the ire up of many /. people in CA, NY, Chicago, etc... but I don't care: Texas is doing the right thing in this case!
Maybe Gore should have won his own state, thus rendering Florida and any alleged shenanigans there irrelevant. If you can't convince the voters who know you best to send you to the White House.....
In 2000, TN electoral votes: 11, FL electoral votes: 25.
Yeah, I totally see how TN would have overshadowed FL voting shenanigans.
What do you have to hide....
Hm, what's the background on this story? Is it a matter of beaurocracy (forgot to file the right papers) or a pissing-contest (my jurisdiction is larger than yours!), because Texas strikes me as an odd place to go for a large-scale vote fraud.
Not that the rest of the world isn't already considering most of the US clinically insane given that there is a serious chance that you'll elect yet another religious nutjob, only this time even nuttier.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
-- US Constitution, Article VI
Why does the Texas AG not know this?
This whole bruhahaha over voter rights and disenfranchising voters is what elections have been about in this country since it was founded. It's been a tug of war ever since the constitution was signed.
Remember that Women weren't allowed to vote? That was in the constitution as well, not in a state law. Poll Taxes weren't abolished until the 1960s!
T
Now all of this voter "deletion" and other unscrupulous acts cause people to take notice? I just ask those people "Where the fuck have you been? Under a rock?"
Look, people in power don't like to give up power, that's why we have really two parties in the US. They've come to write the laws including voter registration laws and the oh so popular redistricting battles that come around every 10 years with the Census. They agree that when one party is in charge that the other will cause no end of fighting and finger pointing to say how fraudulent the process is, no matter how fair people try to make it. Don't like a congressman? We'll redistrict his ass out to the pasture by bringing in more voters of one racial or bias group that will vote more the way we like it.
It's been going on since the country was founded and simply put, it's not fair to some but it's always fair to the politicians who want to hold onto office despite their deplorable voting records and obstructionism.
What's also lost on a lot of people is that Texas picked up a few seats in the house at the loss of predominantly Democratic States. Remember Congressman "I didn't take lude pics of my weiner" Weiner? His seat went *poof* because of the Census and more people moving to Texas. And the Democrats are worried that these 4 extra seats may just go Red. That's why there's been constant legal challenges to the redistricting going on in the state and every left and right wing fringe element is coming to the party. It's just wonderful to watch our courts and our processes get drug into the mud with all this Gerrymandering but it's a fact of life and ultimately the guys who make the laws could fix it but again they have agreement with their counterparts across the aisle to keep the status quo because it keeps them both gainfully in power and employed. You also have a white house with AG Holder that has been playing whack-a-mole with ever voter registration change or requirement that has come along in the last four years to weed out voter fraud. All the while Holder is playing up to every racial minority and pulls the race card out at every opportunity. Having an Picture ID? That's a minimal requirement nowadays even if you want to cash a check, get a bank account or even travel on a train or airplane and this whole bunch of bullshit around this in Texas and in Pennsylvania is another smoke screen to make sure that voter fraud can continue. You see we have to maintain that status quo.
Oh and if you don't think that voter fraud actually exists, how about something that was smoothed over recently. A woman and a democrat, suddenly withdrew from running for Congress when it was alleged that she voted in Maryland and in Florida during the 2006 and 2008 elections. So if you think that voter fraud doesn't exist, here's a woman, running for office with the ethics of a crack dealer. Now it's alleged but her own party called her out! Maybe she can do some arts and crafts when she's in prison?
So who represents you? That's why you vote and that's why every vote does count and I don't care if you're black, white, green or brown but if you're here in the US, are a citizen op age and a resident of the state where you're voting, you should be able to vote. Each state can come up with requirements to assure that
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Maybe Gore should have won his own state, thus rendering Florida and any alleged shenanigans there irrelevant. If you can't convince the voters who know you best to send you to the White House.....
Are you suggesting that if Romney loses Mass. and Michigan he SHOULD lose the White House? Because he surely will be losing those states.
A founding member at that.
Wow, and yet Gore STILL got more votes than Bush in Florida, only to have them not counted by a conspiracy between corrupt election officials and corrupt Supreme Court justices.
My thanks go to the Washington Post and other fine newspapers for establishing this fact, so that nobody in the future will ever consider Bush 's first term to be legitimate:
We settled this 150 years ago.
First off, if you were going to monitor every polling location in Texas with one person, it would require a army larger than most other nations have.
While I am not going to debate the Texas AG statements, one thing is bothering me.
If the Constitution has given the states the power to control their elections process within the requirements set out by the constitution, then the Federal Government signing a treaty dictating a process in the election is doing a end around the Constitution
That seems UN-lawful to me, of course my faith in the federal government has waned over the years to, so there is no surprise there.
I have personally been involved in the election process on the inside, and at least where we were, with extreme voter turnout last
presidential election, I saw nothing that raised my eyebrow. If there is any election rigging its beyond the actual voting process itself.
Either by electronics afterwards, or fraudulent voter registration. Neither that would be able to be verified by being on site with anybody.
And as far as the 100 foot rule, they are pretty firm on that. You can be outside at the proper distance and hold signs to your hearts content
but show any brow beating and they will remove you. Which is the right thing to do. I really do not think there is anything to see here in this issue.
Why bother to cite facts when cited facts don't sway ideological nincompoops like yourself?
Here's your fucking cite, jackass. It's a widely known FACT trivially discovered by a Google search that a four-year-old could do in less time than it takes you to stretch when you wake up.
I need an ID to get a fucking library card. Is it that hard to ask for one at the polls.
In Texas it is seen as a sign of weakness if you have to get closer than 100 feet to cast your vote.
That's because Texans vote by shooting at their ballots. "If you have to get closer than 100 feet, you need to practice your shooting more. YEE-HAW!" *bang* *bang* *bang*
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The US has proven time and time again that she is not responsible enough to conduct her own free and fair elections.
It's time to just stop the shenanigans and have the UN appoint the political representatives in the House and Senate, and the President and Vice President in the White House.
The US is in dire need of a couple of decades of intense scrutiny and oversight to put her house back in order. The UN exists for this purpose - to intervene where atrocities are committed against a people.
Really, they should have stepped in immediately when Bush stole the election outright in 2000, using a coalition of willing military forces to ensure that Gore was properly sworn in as President. That travesty right there was justification enough for intervention.
Romney owns a number of homes, most of which are located in the United States.
Barring executive order, federal laws in the United States supersede international ones, as it requires a local law to enforce a treaty. State laws can be enacted to nullify federal laws in a variety of ways. This is how the United States government was set up, the states have the most power, then federal (in scope, not force) and finally international law, which is little more than an agreement and is not binding for US citizens if the government does not explicitly say so.
Wow, reading through the comments, just so many hateful Europeans on here hatin' away. WTF is up with that?
This recalls to me an article about managed democracy in Russia. They had similar concerns about maintaining the appearance of popular elections and to that end they wanted to avoid anyone studying the process very closely.
http://world.time.com/2012/10/15/the-managed-democracy-a-how-to-manual-from-putins-russia/
In Texas the problem is the same. Sure we want elections that appear popular. But I'm not sure that we could have a leader who allowed elections that would appear free, fair, and legitimate to independent observers from other nations who could actually study the process closely. Wouldn't that look like loss of control, weakness? Elected officials would be answerable to the people rather than to the party officials. Party members would ask "How can the elected officials be held to account?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThreeBallot
Ok lets use a different example.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am21.html
I can absolutely get arrested in the united states for 'bootlegging'. I live one county over from one that if you buy beer in the county over and drive thru it you are bootlegging and can be arrested for it.
Here is the thing. There are laws out there that contradict each other. There are laws at the state/county/city level that are more strict than the federal level.
So yes you can have observers but they must follow the more strict rules too...
This guy put it better than I did.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3207823&cid=41763199
These rules are a *good* thing.
Best example someone ever told me and which convinced me better than anything. Lets say I go over to someones house. I drop my shorts and take a big ol harry dump right in the middle of their living room. I would expect to be thrown out of the house. I do not get to stick around and say things 'but that is how I do it my house'. No, I get thrown out. Their house, their rules.
The simple solution? A state government issued photo id with your voter registration number on it. Simple. Maybe you accept a state ID, a driver's license, a passport, or a concealed carry permit for that matter. OR maybe you make every person drag their ass down once in their ever so busy life and stand in line for a VOTER ID card. But SOMETHING that proves you are an American citizen that has at one point had some passing interest in governance and society. I unequivocally reject the notion that voting should be a "Zero Investment Activity". If you want a say in how the country, and thereby very much the world, runs it is NOT too much to ask that you show the barest sliver of interest and forethought. Frankly if someone has to tackle you outside a shopping mall and beg you to fill out the form - I do NOT want you influencing the course of civilization.
I will admit to an anti-liberal leaning. I say that because I'm not much happier with those calling themselves conservatives. But I have not seen a single proposal that was aimed, or could even be used for, anything other than curbing voter fraud. I do not understand why everyone is not 100% behind this. The only possible benefactors I can see from this fraud is allowing illegal aliens to vote. And yes I refuse to call them undocumented non-citizen guest residents.
Who was to know that would apply to a state of the US instead of a small foreign state.
Care to explain your thought process a bit further?
The other poster wasn't completely correct.
When the US ratifies a treaty with a 2/3 Senate vote, the treaty has the same force of law as other federal law, and trumps any state or municipal law.
If a clause in the treaty clashes with the US Constitution, then that treaty clause isn't valid (in the US).
But a treaty signed & approved by 2/3 or the US Senate overrides anything BUT the US Constitution.
OK. Amemendment 14, Congress shall have the power to ensure rights of voting.
Treaty signed by the Senate as law of the land.
Nice and constitutional.
Move along Contard.
Ratified treaties have direct no legal effect for national bodies until they are transferred into state law. They are not allowed to violate the constitution of a country. However, if you sign a treaty and ratify a treaty it is a legal international law document and your fine country has to comply to the rules, which includes making laws or changing laws in a way to satisfy the treaty. This is however not possible, if the treaty violates the constitution, as that thing supersedes all laws.
Obviously Texas law is in conflict with that treaty. And if Texas and the US do not want to look like a horde of split tongue people, they have to fix it. If not, the OSCE will send and publish a protest note, which will summarize like "How dare you!". Ah yes, and the rest of the world will call the US a Banana Republic. However, that makes not much difference from now, as the rest of the world expects that the US fails to have fair elections.
You equate low income with democrats...
Are democrats unable to work?
Are democrats bad with money?
Are democrats unwilling to work?
Are democrats lazy and just want to take other peoples money?
Or
Are you a TV educated economic racist?
No brain, no pain.
Not saying you are wrong, but I did a quick search and was unable to confirm that the US Senate ever ratified any treaty to join the OSCE. It appears to be an 'ad hoc' organisation which the US Executive chose to work with (and obviously the US has been backing them around the world so this stinks of hypocrisy) but there may not, in fact, be any treaty obligation towards them. Under the US Constitution, treaties may only be properly ratified by the Senate. I have noticed a trend lately to skip that step and just pretend the Presidential say-so is fine instead, but it isnt.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
If any of you actually lived in Texas, you would realize this entire discussion is moot.
Simply drive around and count the " I support Obama " vs " I support Romney " signs, stickers, and whatnot everywhere.
In yards, stuck on cars, in restaurants, etc. etc. Most of them are of the " NoBama " variety.
Very, very few in Texas support Obama. ( They don't really support Romney either, but that's the only other choice. Isn't Democracy great ? :| )
The ONLY way Obama will win Texas is if the never ending stream of non-citizens crossing the border all vote for him :D
Since when? When was the last time any politician told the truth, or did our bidding? We have been lied to for many decades. It doesn't matter if you are Dem or Repub. They do and say whatever is in their best interests, not yours or mine. Once people like you accept that fact then we can proceed to remove all the puppets, and attempt to put people who are actually going to do what we, and not the biggest donor tell them.
You keep referring to "we". I'm not sure whom you mean, nor am I sure that "we" aren't the problem. A country's politicians are a symptom of that country's dysfunction, not the cause of it. If American politicians are corrupt and selfish, I don't have to look too far to figure out why that is. As a wise man once wrote, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Also, it's perfectly possible that a politician's self-interest will coincide with my own, at least in a loose, pragmatic sort of way. You assume that "people like [us]" are trusting souls who are blissfully unaware, instead of canny observers who are hard-headedly pragmatic. I'm perfectly aware that there's a hell of a lot that sucks about the Democratic Party; I'm also capable of recognizing that the Republicans suck more, are more toxic, and have an agenda I view as far more malignant and destructive.
Finally, you say that "once people like you accept that fact then we can proceed to remove all the puppets". Nearly every revolutionary has said the same thing, and ended up shooting thousands or millions of people in their quest to force everyone to "accept" the facts of their choosing. If your political plan requires that people accept your vision of the world, it will invariably end in mass murder -- and the very same corruption you sought to root out in the first place.
In short: you are not some enlightened visionary who transcends the myopia of the "sheeple". Wisdom lies in those who get their hands dirty, not those who claim to have risen above the mess. For the truth is that life is messy, politics are messy, and indeed, the truth itself is messy. Any attempt to clean up any of those things, and replace them with some perfected vision of The Way Things Ought To Be, usually results in death and destruction.
Federal observers, by definition, would not be independent. These actual independent observers are not enforcers, but observers - they don't change what happens in the voting process, they merely report what they observed. That's why they're called observers. It would help your argument if you knew what you were talking about. And the constitution states that international treaties supersede local laws, so this guy is talking out his ass. Like you.
If the state of Texas has done nothing wrong, they should have no problem being subjected to scrutiny, right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That's a pretty blatant attempt at poor arguing via changing the subject. Election abuse doesn't become less problematic because it benefits the party you support; the fact that there are ignorant people out there, like you, who would happily see democracy thrown out of the window to get the candidate they want 'elected' emphasises the need for independent observation.
I somehow don't have the impression the slogan "Hillary for president" goes down well in Texas. It isn't really a swing state.
So knowing Texas is a republican state, claiming democrats will be dealt the shit card practically is a moot point. It would matter but it doesn't. For the presidential election anyway.
As I understand -and I guess I will be corrected here- Idaho is the only state that truly matters. Once International Election Observers are banned from Idaho then something significantly rummy is about to unfold.
To foreigners the USA presidential election is an enigma. It seems the system isn't interested in the population's inclination being represented proportionally. It boils down to whoever wins Idaho. I'm surprised people in non swing states still vote. Practically speaking, fixing certain state's inclinations for 20 years would save money without freedom being truly trampled upon.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Texas is a joke, we should give it back to mexico where it belongs. Remember the Alamo!!!!
You're assuming Mexico would even want a backwater state such as Texas.
Nah, the only good Texan is a dead Texan 'nuff said.
And then they were inspired to have an emperor. (Napoleon)(1804)
And then they were inspired to have a king again. (Louis XVIII)
Just kidding! (Hundred Days)
Ah, merde! (Waterloo)
Fuck this king, we'll get another one (July revolution)
Aight, aight, republic for real this time. (second republic)
Man, this Napoleon guy really had it going on. Let's give his nephew an empire, what the heck. (second empire)
The Germans kicked our asses and captured our emperor. New government anyone? (3rd republic) (1870) (Battle of Sedan)
Additionally, Paris had a communist government for a hot minute in 1871. They're up to republic #5 now, with another couple of intergovernmental excursions during and after WWII. I'm not saying that they go through governments like a transvestite goes through nylons, but you should probably pick an american-inspired regime change that lasted for more than twelve years. Unfortunately, there aren't many positive examples there. The Phillipines, Cuba, Hawai'i, Iran, Guatemala, Honduras, Afghanistan/Iraq, and Venezuela come to mind. Propping up the Kuomintang probably hasn't been a very good idea either.
The US leads the world in military might and propaganda. We are some of the biggest assholes the world has ever seen, and we have this idea that people should like us for it.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
No there's not. There are superficial differences which do a good job of keeping the rabble roused, but fundamentally there's almost no difference. Both fundamentally favor protection of corporate interests and the expansion of government power. Their list of corporate interests might differ slightly, but are surprisingly similar.
If there were a fundamental difference in the parties, it would be reflected in their rhetoric on things like the NDAA, our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the huge abuses of the financial industry in the U.S., etc. But both parties are CONSPICUOUSLY SILENT on all these issues. Instead they want to argue about what word the other guy used in a press conference, or what the other guy said in a divorce case twenty years ago.
Face it, on the issues that really matter, there is no substantive difference between the parties. Any perceived difference is simply electioneering--saying they'd do it different than the other guy. Even though they probably supported the other guy's position publicly a few years ago...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Two words: KICK ROCKS!
Elections are run by the States, not the Feds -- except in D.C. and other Federal areas.
Yes and no. Article I, Section 5: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members
Congress does have some power to regulate Federal Elections. In the extreme example they could simply refuse to recognize an obviously corrupt election by refusing to seat the winner of said election. The US Senate was going to refuse to sit Roland Burris, though they backpedaled for reasons unknown.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
OCSE observers have been present at elections in Texas for ten years, without incident. OCSE can and does recruit watchers who meet the eligibility requirements for registered observers under Texas state law.
This is purely a manufactured issue, to entertain the masses.
Congressionally approved treaty terms, of course. Where else?
??
That's a hilarious warning. When we observe elections in other nations, we get involved at all levels, and frankly given the state of many of our elections, could use the same here.
Oregon Vote My Mail: Ask for it in a State near you.
Blogging because I can...
It's settled then. In Texas international election observers will conducted under the auspicies of Heinekin, Becks, Fosters, Stolichnaya, Dos Equis, Guiness, Molson, Dom Perignon, Tsingtao, and, of course, Mr. Jose Cuervo.
In a society where moral objectivity is now rejected as a norm and moral subjectivity or complete lack thereof is championed, it can be of little surprise that things like this begin to happen.
As the population loses view of what is right and wrong and evermore focuses on satiating their own desires above keeping their elected officials accountable... this will only get worse.
But don't tell anyone there is indeed a moral objectivity to the world, apparently this is discriminatory and politically incorrect.
Actually, I supported and voted for Al Gore, but don't let that inconvenient truth get in the way of your stereotyping. :)
The fact is, Al Gore ran one of the worst campaigns of the 20th century. Winning his own state, or even New Hampshire, would have rendered FL moot. You can cry "election abuse" all you want, but it's worth noting that charge can easily be leveled in the opposite direction. The sad truth is that we'll never know who might have won Florida absent outside interference. How many voters in the panhandle (a GOP leaning area) declined to vote after the media incorrectly called the election while the panhandle polls were still open? How many voters were confused by the butterfly ballot? These questions can never be completely answered.
Nor can "election abuse" explain away the series of stupid decisions made by Al Gore, like cynically seeking recounts only in Democratic strongholds, rather than the entire state. Distancing himself from a popular outgoing President was a huge mistake that was apparent even then, and doubly so in hindsight. His debate performances were atrocious. The guy didn't deserve to be President, and if the GOP had nominated someone less divisive than GWB the election would have been a rout.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The election in New Mexico was decided by less than 400 votes, but nobody gave a shit about it. Why is that? It's called math.
Take Al Gore's 267 electoral votes and add Tennessee's 11 to the total. Guess what? Florida becomes irrelevant, as does New Mexico. Al Gore stops caring about "all the votes" (which really meant all the votes in Democratic strongholds, because he never asked for a statewide recount) and is sworn into office the following January.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Michigan may well prove to be competitive, but yes, I do think there's something seriously wrong when a candidate can't convince the voters of his own state that he's worthy of being President.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It is unlikely that Michigan will be competitive. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ shows 97.3% chance of Obama win.
Makes me wonder what Texas is hiding.
Except that there is no treaty.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The idea that requiring ID to vote some how disenfranchises legitimate and legal voters is asinine. The contention is that low-income and minority citizens won't have ID's and will be afraid to get them or can't afford them. You need an ID to even try to get a job, claim State or Federal benefits, cash payroll checks, open a checking account, etc.
The only legitimate complaint I can see is that they may not be able to afford an ID (currently $16 in Texas and for someone without a job that is a few meals). That's easy enough to fix... just make ID's free.
The joke here is that many of the countries that represent OSCE require voter ID's in their elections.(The article also mentions issues with gerrymandering... which is a problem but that's a problem in most states... Chicago pretty much wrote the book on this.)
What's driving all of this is the rampant fraud and abuse of the system by illegal immigrants in Texas. I recently read an article that was carrying on about how Texas was a "red"/republican state and but was taking more money from the Federal government than it was giving back. The article was implying that Texas voters were hypocritical in there beliefs. They're not. They are well aware that there is a huge drain on resources and social from illegal immigration. However, the Federal government and the "blue" states are trying their best to keep them from doing anything about it. This is where the backlash and "attitude" is coming from.
And the name of the main player in the voter disenfranchisement laws? One Republican Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/court-blocks-tough-voter-id-law-in-texas.html
Texas voter ID laws require a photo ID from one of the limited list of 5 types, if you don't have one, you can get a government ID card by paying a nice fee to get a copy of your birth certificate (which doesn't have a photo and can't be used as the ID, yet can be used to obtain the ID!). The people without the IDs specified have a strong Democrat profile, and the court threw this law out when several black people complained they were turned away when attempted to obtain the government ID.
Basically he's trying to prevent black people from voting, because they don't vote Republican.
Worse still the challengers at the polling stations. Karl Rove sent out registered letters to serving soldiers in Afghanistan. Those letters he sent to their home address in the USA, while they were away in Afghanistan. The letters get returned, he then uses the returned letters to challenge the voters at the polls and try to prevent them voting. Groups of well, Nazis youth*, attempt to intimidate the individual soldiers using the returned letter as evidence they don't live there. US Soldiers vote with a strong Democrat bias, so he doesn't like them to vote.
He's frightened the election monitors will witness all of the vote rigging that goes on and he'll face criminal charges. So even though anyone can witness an election, and OCSE observers are legally allowed to, he's trying to scare them off from his patch.
* Yes I know Goodwin's Law, but when you see them at the RNC, white, young, in uniform, carrying Romney banners and pulling down any banners for Ron Paul. They do look a lot like the Nazi youth movement.
It should be noted that they did NOTHING along these lines when the Black Panthers did what they did.
Except these are neutral observers, not anyone attempting to engage in voter intimidation the way the BPP allegedly was
Even much of that 20% that people were ranting on and on about.
Most? Much? Try 4%
That's an 80% error rate in their purge.
You are so disingenuous it begs credulity.
"..the legalese in international treaties supersedes national laws where applicable.."
Not in the US.
The president can sign treaties all day long, but unless ratified into legislation by the US congress (and thus exposed to scrutiny on the grounds of Constitutionality), they are meaningless in US law.
The USC is rather clear in that the Federal government can set boundaries and limits on the behavior of the individual states' voting practices, but CANNOT dictate methods. I sincerely doubt any such "treaty" allowing observers would pass constitutional muster.
-Styopa
oh, wait.
Read Ed Buggs comment. http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3207823&cid=41763311 He's right.
load "$",8,1
You are looking at the wrong case.
As any first year law student will tell you, Missouri v. Holland 252 U.S. 416 clearly establishes that the federal gov't may regulate in areas not designated by the constitution via the treaty power. This has been settled law since 1920. Furthermore, Article I Sec 4 of the Constitution does allow Congress should it choose to do so, to set rules regarding federal elections, meaning the courts would look even more kindly on an intrepretation favoring the treaty rule in such a situation.
Unfortunately, the rub is that the Helsinki Final Act establishing the OCSE regime is not a full advice and consent treaty but rather more of an aspirational document, meaning that the U.S. is not automatically nound by it. however the interesting thing about international law is that states can be subject to something resembling international "common" law through consistent practice. This common law is on par with the constitution and is supreme to contradictory state law. Medellin v. Texas aside, given the U.S.'s consistent championing of OCSE election monitoring since 1975, Federal courts might very well hold that they had subjected themselves to binding international law.
If that's the case, Texas can go jump in a lake.
Yes, IAAL.
Trash? Bullshit.
Even non-formal treaties can still can become binding international law (supreme to state law) through consistent practice, and the U.S. has consistently pushed for submission to election monitoring in other countries. Compare this, e.g., to the Human Rights conventions, which pretty much no one, including the U.S., has taken seriously.
And there are any number of non-formal treaties (e.g. executive agreements, etc.) that carry the force of law.
Quit pretending to be a lawyer when you clearly have not studied the law.
Given Stormy's numerous obvious misunderstandings of basic domestic and international law (or even the legal definition of harassment) as evidenced above in the thread, he has clearly never been to law school and is talking out his ass.
That and a quarter will buy him a very bad cup of coffee, but it sure isn't going to make him right in the eyes of a court of law.
OSCE *does* use local observers, to be *eligible to be an observer under Texas law you have to be a local voter.
However you also have to be an assigned by a party candidate. OCSE watchers cannot be independent and yet be assigned by one the candidates.
You also have to be approved by the Election Judge for that polling station. Not really a judge, In Texas an Election Judge is a partisan official. A party crony.
It's ripe for abuse, and Abbott's just confirming that the vote in Texas won't stand up to close scrutiny.
FTFY
You have that exactly backwards. A quarter of black Americans do not have ID. Those "free" ID's can cost $200 for older Americans born at home without birth certificates, and expensive trips to the DMV for the poor.
And all to address a problem that simply does not exist .
All the "voter fraud" cases that people like you point to are either:
1) Actually voter registration fraud, not preventable by any ID law
2) Voting absentee and then in a polling booth - also not prevented by any ID law
You know how many cases of in-person voting fraud there are in the United States? About a dozen over a 10 year period, out of more than 600 million votes cast across the country. Ten times that many people were killed by vending machines in the same time period. So unless you're running around screaming for laws to protect us from this vending machine menace, why on earth are you demanding ID's to vote?
Voter ID solves a problem that does not exist, while raising considerable barriers to voting for poor Americans. If the laws you demand were in place in the 80's, Ronald Reagan would not have been able to vote in either of the elections he won for the presidency.
Because he was born at home without a birth certificate, and didn't get one until the 90's.
What a cesspool of bias slashdot has become, where was the righteous indignation from any of you when the new black panther party stood outside a polling place in Philly in 2008 with nightsticks threatening people that they "Better vote for the black man"? Oh yeah that voter intimidation is ok... Now democrats are sending letters to registered republicans in Florida telling them not to vote because they are no longer registered...
Texas: worst state in the entire country.
You do know we're talking about Texas, right?
There wouldn't be any point in fixing the vote. It ain't broke. Fixing it would be a no-op.
Everybody already knows the outcome. Texas voted for McCain with a twelve-point spread. They haven't gone Dem since the seventies (specifically, they voted for Carter, along with virtually the entire South). You don't need a graduate degree in statistics to figure out the pattern here. Texas isn't going to vote for Obama. They just don't swing that way.
The guys you accuse of intending to fix the vote belong to the party that's going to win in Texas anyway, inevitably, by a substantial margin.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
More proof that conservative ideology is rebranded fascism.
The entire US needs election monitors - specifically in every state that has enacted or attempted to enact voter ID laws since the last election... and even moreso in the battleground states.
2000 was a bigger embarrassment and wake up call.
You prove by your own words that your are an ill informed, uneducated, arrogant idiot. You do not understand the relationship of the Federal Government and State Governments. If you are in the United States of America you will probably vote even if you are not a citizen or otherwise not eligible to vote. And I can predict that the candidtate will be a Socialist.
"PROBABLY?"
and the very next quote said he was doomed to fail even if he got the full recount.
Nice of you to selectively quote it.
It's not the UN, it is the OSCE. Despite the article summary, I could find nothing linking the OSCE to the UN.
The ODIHR is the subdivision of the OSCE that actually observes elections. The OCSE was part of the Paris Charter, which was based on agreements in the Helsinki Accords. Neither the Paris Charter, nor the Helsinki Accords are treaties, by definition. They only apply within the working confines of the UN. Therefore, there is no one this side of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who could claim that Texas state law is subservient to observers working under the auspices of the ODIHR. QED
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Article 1, Section 4: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators. Congress has the power to actually make and alter State Law for elections (at least those where Congressional members are standing).
No "probably" about it. Gore would have won a statewide recount under any scenario.
Who needs stereotyping? The whole "home state" argument is nonsense to begin with, as if it's a liberal's fault that he didn't win his conservative "home state" anymore than it is a conservative's fault that he didn't win his because it's more liberal than he is.
Case in point: Bush didn't win his home state, either.
Wow, and yet Gore STILL got more votes than Bush in Florida, only to have them not counted by a conspiracy between corrupt election officials and corrupt Supreme Court justices.
My thanks go to the Washington Post and other fine newspapers for establishing this fact, so that nobody in the future will ever consider Bush 's first term to be legitimate:
171 out of 6,000,000? That's almost a whole 0.003%! I imagine that's well within the margin of error.
Stop! Dremel time!
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!" (Yes, I know Texas is "not in Kansas". That's kind of the point.)
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
It isn't talked about because it has no merit in reality. Move along, this small bit of troll food is all you are going to get.
The guy is simply saying he'll enforce the law and won't be making exceptions for people from corrupt organizations like the UN or any other for people from largely partisan organizations like the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, and the ACLU. .
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Riiiiight... because if Romney wins the delegates in Texas, it'll be because the "powers that be" rigged the election. I'd be more suspicious of an Obama win in Texas. Back in the days of LBJ and the dead voting... the UN might've had a case for "observing" the elections. These days it's pretty damned hard to fix elections (and don't pull the "Gore won the election in 2000" crap..., because that was a load of shit and sticks to start with, Gore simply gambled a bunch of idiots in one county really meant to vote for him...)
On fair elections... Texas isn't some backwater province of Mexico rife with fraud and corruption.
You make a good point but it would be nice if you used more family friendly language.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I often wonder if the amount of lies told during an election year can obtain a critical mass that would bend the laws of reality causing lies to become truth and vice-versa.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
You're deliberately misrepresenting the results of the very report you link to.
According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.
Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.
The quote you chose conveniently cut out the caveats.
Please. This is Texas. Texas doesnt need to rig the votes to swing right. Its one of the redest states in the union.
Only because of its relatively skewed turnout.
It'd be Purple if certain parts of the electorate showed up to vote.
They don't. Why don't they?
That's a tough one.
People from my State find these hyper-reactions to Voter ID laws hilarious, because my State has had Voter ID laws since the 50's and nobody gave a shit then and nobody gives a shit now because its a very blue state. Its Connecticut. Over half the States have Voter ID laws, but the only time anyone claims that there is a problem with these laws is when its a red state. Hilarious.
You are, strangely, confused about why. It's because it is conservative states implementing these laws, the same ones that previously also disenfranchised minorities through such mechanisms while professing the intent was to secure the ballot.
Sorry, but you should read your history.
What happened to "if you've got nothing to hide" that is so popular in US?
please use correct grammar when calling someone a moron or else its less credible - its "you're" a moron
Please use correct grammar, including correct apostrophe placement, when correcting someone else's grammar.
I guess this is evidence of karma of a sort.
Muphry's Law. (No, that's not a typo. :)
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Rule of law trumps moral oblication in this case.
If there are not paper ballots, and every ballot is saved for a potential recount, then you cannot have any trust in the outcome.
Insist upon paper ballots for integrity.
No matter what law says, this is wrong. OSCE election observers has never been accused in pushing agenda by visited country, they are really neutral as much as human beings can be. They just observe. So no matter what intend is here it just feels like they are unwelcome because ugly things can happen.
That's also stuff that worries me with US - while two party system, unlimited money-speech, etc. stuff is very problematic (I won't call it dead end, but there's little ray of hope), if someone starts to tamper with election process itself - and all those voter fraud laws and creative ways to block so called "Dem vote" from happening indicates that desire is there, there are violations from other side of the fence, but enough evidence indicates that they are exceptions rather than rule - then whole (not perfect, but stable) system can unravel very quickly enough.
I just don't get it why part of super rich people in US are so found of radicalism (After all, Tea Party in essence is their business project). Gives them crowd easy to manipulate? Is it really all they want?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Wow, and yet Gore STILL got more votes than Bush in Florida, only to have them not counted by a conspiracy between corrupt election officials and corrupt Supreme Court justices.
My thanks go to the Washington Post and other fine newspapers for establishing this fact, so that nobody in the future will ever consider Bush 's first term to be legitimate:
History has recorded George Bush as the winner, and that is correct as the newpaper studies showed. It is a pity that even now, some people are unable to come to terms with that fact, preferring their make-believe ideas.
MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH WON THE 2000 ELECTION
More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.
In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
To some of us it looks like left-leaning international activists attempting to influence US elections by either:
[a] hanging-out at the polls to intimidate people into voting the way the rest of the planet wants them to vote
or
[b] observing no problems but then trying to de-legitimize Romney if he is the winner by then claiming to have seen irregularities
Foreign "inspectors" are welcome to watch us vote provided they obey our laws which are designed to prevent intimidation/interference but if they interfere in any way they should be jailed... we are not a third-world country that has never before held fair elections or has just recently begun holding them. Personally, I am fine with the inspectors as long as they come from constitutional republics with longer records of free and fair elections than we have... countries like um.... err.... well.... uhh.....
That's actually part of the constitution. All treaties are considered US law, per the Constitution.
Sucks to be the Texas Attorney General, but this treaty is the law of the USA.
We don't want your neutral observers checking to see if our democracy is screwed up. To prevent you from catching our rigged process, we will claim some silly local law to keep you from seeing what is going on. That way its your word against ours. If you can actually see and have proof, then you can nail us for sure. An open and fair electoral process has nothing to hide and nothing to lose. A rigged election has everything to lose. Observers don't obstruct, they just observe. Its when they observe, and then report widespread abuse that things become a problem.
I found out that California is just as bad as Texas. It is hard to say California is worse though. An analogy: Which is worse: Being thrown into an active volcano or being thrown off of a 500 foot cliff into the ocean? Both states disenfranchise voters arbitrarily based on political motivations.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
And for the case of Texas, why bother checking it? It will vote republican, they don't have to vote, no one have to turn up, it is already decided, it is not a swingstate.
The entire US election system is fraud and undemocratic, it does not matter how many people vote for a president, it all depends on which states together vote for one, so if you are a democrat living in Texas, go have dinner on election day, go to an amusement park, or have sex with whomever, just don't go vote, it is pointless.
If this actually happened we could have the case where up to 80% of registered voters vote for the loosing candidate...
"May". They didn't. OSCE isn't a ratified treaty, it is a gentlemen's agreement and thus not law.
A unique aspect of the OSCE is the non-binding status of its provisions. Rather than being a formal treaty, the OSCE Final Act represents a political commitment by all signatories to build security and cooperation in Europe on the basis of its provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe#History
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The "found" ballots seem to be overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate.
The only thing that saved that judge election in Wisconsin is that one county clerk holding back several thousand valid ballots (I don't believe her claim of accident). It gave the Democrats a false target of how many votes needed to be "found" to win, and they fell short.
RCP has MI within the margin of error on most polls. Nate Silver has admitted his own bias towards Obama, so I'm not inclined to take him seriously.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't know how you're reading that chart because RCP has MI at Obama +4. Only one poll shows them at a tie, the other three (even Rasmussen) show Obama ahead. Nate Silver has a fantastic model, regardless of his personal bias, which he acknowledges but does not allow to affect the model.
This sounds remarkably similar to behavior that we condemn when committed by officials of other countries.
As I said, it's within the margin of error, which is generally 3 to 5 points, depending on the poll. I originally said, "MI may well prove to be competitive." It's certainly more competitive than BHO having a 97+% chance of victory. Even Intrade (where people have to put up real money, would Mr. Silver be willing to do that?) doesn't give him those kinds of odds.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Big Brother, what big eyes you have - - - The better to watch you with
Big Brother, what big laws you have - - - The better to cheat you with
Big Brother, what do you have to hide???
There's a word for that.
you never had it, i think
> We support international observation of elections in other nations.
> When it comes to us, it's only fair-play to say "sure, have at it".
I tend to agree with that. However, I don't live in Texas, and strangely enough I don't seem to have much pull with their state legislature, which is where the change would have to be made.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
The only reasonable action for Florida to have taken was to carefully and dutifully count every vote. All other proposals were unreasonable, including Gore's proposed partial recount, and including the unconstitutional and corrupt decision to not count all the votes and just to allow a political appointee to illegally declare her party the victor.
Under a full recount of all votes, Gore won.
Thus my conclusions. I think it is quite the correct conclusions.
"if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested."
Right. They never should have allowed the hand count he requested. Obviously they should have conducted a complete count of all votes -- something that was never done before the election was certified. When that count was done, after the inauguration, we learned positively that the corrupt and illegal action by Republican back-room operators did in fact steal the election rightly won by Gore, who received the most votes in Florida. Nobody disputes this fact, including you. Focusing on Al Gore's political maneuvering is a hand-waving tactic used to ignore the fact that the majority (plurality) of Floridians voted for Gore.
My state, Virginia, has laws very similar to Texas in this regard. Election watchers must also be registered to vote in the state, and be nominated by the party on whose behalf they are watching. I would imagine that this is a very common practice.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
OMG - yet another reason that I am ashamed and embarrassed to admit to Texas being my home state! And I am not an "anonymous coward"! My name is Elizabeth Griffith.