Foreign Observers Will Monitor U.S. Fall Elections

Mike Irwin said:
These people are not being arbiters of anything. They're not deciding anything. They're not commanding anything. They're not empowered to do anything.
Click to expand...
Then why are they here?

They *are* empowered to do something - report their opinions in the press. World opinion is a strong force that leans mainly against the United States. This "right of observation" gives these people more credibility in the World Court of Public Opinion.

Mike Irwin said:
It just boggles my mind some of the delusional fantasies I've heard over the past few days.
Click to expand...
Well you didn't hear them in my post, so don't try to undermine my position by bringing in this strawman argument, please. :)

Mike Irwin said:
This isn't the first time foreign observers have been in the United States for a recent election.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, but it's the first time that I'm aware of it. Should I sit still and give in just because there is a precedent for their presence? Should I not get upset about their presence just because other frogs have already been boiled?

Unpopular decisions are regularly overturned by men in positions of power. I urge everyone to contact the State Department and express your displeasure with this unwelcome intrusion.
 
Foreign Observers

This is pure unadultrated horse manure. Another step towards a world government being imposed on the US.
 
"Then why are they here?"

They're not here. They won't be here for some months. When they do get here, it's because they'll have been invited here by our government, not because they decided to invade the United States and take command of our electoral process on their own volition.


"They *are* empowered to do something - report their opinions in the press."

Of course. Opinions about the American electoral process being reported in the press. That would be a first, wouldn't it.

No one in Europe has ever said a word about the American electoral process. Pravda, Der Tag, Le Monde, the Times of London, they never said boo about the 2000 presidential election, or the 2002 by elections, or had quotes about American elections from their governmental leaders. We've NEVER seen any of our European members talk about it, and to a person fail to grasp the unique concepts of the American electoral process.

Keep the process shrouded in as much mystery as possible and maybe they won't notice it. That's certainly a constructive way to promote understanding and acceptance in the foreign press and populace.

And tell me. Why all of a sudden all of the concern about what the foreign press/populace thinks? The foreign press writes frequently on the issue of firearms in America, and it's routinely dismissed because it's inaccurate, with frequent calls for the foreign press to actually understand firearms issues in America. Members here take great pains to try to explain the American firearms culture and rights to our foreign visitors.

Perhaps, then, we should embargo foreign visitors because they might form an opinion based on fact and better understanding?

Foreign press coverage has leaned heavily against the United States before this, and will continue to do so in spite of this. This isn't some magic bullet that will cause an adoring world to immediately hate us and invade to try to set the electoral process "right."

"Well you didn't hear them in my post..."

Actually, yes, I did. You provided your own strawman argument with your claim that this will allow "defacto foreign control of our democratic process."

The Constitution, as I noted, provides that the STATES, not the Federal Government, decide how elections are conducted, i.e., the democratic process. As I noted, Florida has already exercised its Constitutional powers by issuing limitations on just how these observers can OBSERVE the electoral process. Given that the states exercise the true power here, just how do you expect this foreign control to manifest itself?

"Should I not get upset about their presence just because other frogs have already been boiled?"

You shouldn't get upset over their presence because it's a non issue in a world of vastly more important issues. You shouldn't get upset about their presence based on hysterical speculation that a few dozen observers will somehow cause the immediate and irrevocable derailment of American democracy.

If you truly want Europeans, and others, to understand, and even to love America, then you should welcome the opportunity for fostering understanding of what makes America unique, not attempt to hide these unique institutions based on irrational fears.

If you TRULY want to protect the American electoral process, use your energy to get your friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and even strangers registered to vote, and get them to the polls come election day.

Don't waste your energy running in circles yelling about how the sky is falling.
 
Mike,

We are in agreement that getting people out to vote is more important than griping about foreign observers.

Mike Irwin said:
They won't be here for some months. When they do get here, it's because they'll have been invited here by our government...
Click to expand...
That's why I'm actively campaigning for people to contact our government to express their displeasure.

Mike Irwin said:
Opinions about the American electoral process being reported in the press. That would be a first, wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
Funny. :)
Like I said, though, this will give them credibility that they haven't previously enjoyed. It is one thing for outsiders to opine on their casual observances of our electoral process, but quite another for them to be given official access to places which were previously off limits.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we have anything to hide (as a matter of fact, I think we have a lot that we could teach others by example). The idea of foreign election observers in the United States is repulsive to me because they are not here to learn, they are here to supervise. WE are a country with a 200+ year history of peaceful transfer of power between multiple political factions. There may only be a handful of nations like us in the world! The United States should be emulated, not watched by some third-world wonks who think they can show us how elections should be run.

Mike Irwin said:
You provided your own strawman argument with your claim that this will allow "defacto foreign control of our democratic process."
Click to expand...
Nice selective editing. ;) Your words: "will allow". My words: "will lead to". Quite honestly, I'm not sure how it will lead to foreign control, (Perhaps "control" is too strong a word. "Influence" would be more accurate.) but it looks, smells and feels like a slippery slope to me.

My view on foreign observers over our national elections is similar to my view on Libya being chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. It is absurd.
 
We are, for the moment at least, still better than the rest of the world when it comes to the operation of a Republic. Really. We taught them about true self-determination. Now they, many of whom have American blood to thank for the freedoms they've sold for a government pension and a cheap Eurail Pass, see fit to monitor us. It's sick that the State Department legitimizes these amateurs. Then again, our government has been moving inexorably to the left since Reagan's departure from office left us at the mercy of the "moderates."

There, now that that is off my chest...

Doesn't anybody care that the State Department has no standing to monitor or allow the monitoring of these elections? These elections are the responsibility of the individual states. They are organized, run, and certified at the state level. I expect the old European dinosaurs to miss that point, but IMO it is literally criminal that our own Feds ignore it, considering that it is a constitutional point.
 
QUOTE: "The U.S. is obliged to invite us, as all OSCE countries should," spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir said. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment. They signed a document 10 years ago to ask OSCE to observe elections." ENDQUOTE

.... The OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe - was set up as a co-operative effort dealing specifically with europe. The only reason we are "members", like Canada, is that we took part in the bombing and invasion of Serbia/Kosova and the subsequent occupation and overseeing of the political process there. This is what OSCE was (at least everyone was told at the time ;) ....) set up for. It has nothing to do with us, we are not an "OSCE country". There is no such thing.

Unless of course we have not been told the whole story all along ;)
 
Public Law establishing the CSCE

"and a greater interchange of people and ideas between East and West."

Near as I can tell, participation by OSCE is technically quite appropriate. It is a mechanism by which countries comment upon how each operates. The door swings both ways.

The Help America Vote Act provides funding to States for equipment and procedural upgrades. Such funding is not unconditional, so there would be a measure of accountability between State and Federal government agencies. This is not the first time that Federal funding provided leverage for State compliance. If that's a Faustian arrangement, then perhaps taxes need to percolate instead of flow downward as a form of power. To make some arguments valid then, the entire structure of the governmental environment must be redefined. What argument then is realistic?

Arguments in principle are to be respected, but it seems to me that there is a lot of tilting with windmills here. I would have to conclude that those who are impervious to any plausible explanation are fundamentally isolationists and extreme "conservatives" and will never let go of their arguments.

It is a good argument that interference in a country's affairs always starts at some entry point, a precedent. Vigilance is justified. But I don't think protesting fundamental compliance with a treaty or taking advantage of participation is the way to do it. I think I would watch for election observer reports expanding the scope of their comments beyond the intent of the visit. Maintenance of appropriate degrees of observation is another thing to scrutinize.

The 2002 report looks entirely appropriate and helpful to me, and it lends credibility to the HAVA Act that made voting machine and procedural reforms possible. I believe the US is still setting a good example for other countries to follow. If we did not allow any level of scrutiny/comment, or whatever word suits you, we could hardly expect to have any influence on what other countries do.

Arguments lacking an ounce of pragmatism just don't seem very respectable to me.
 
I'm not comfortable at all with 'foreign' observers in our election process, espcially when those 'foreign' observers tend toward the socialist side and would naturally have a bias toward the left in this country.

That being said, I think it a trifle confused to say that you don't care what the rest of the world thinks
of this country, then have a fit over 'foreign' observers influencing what the rest of the world thinks of us.
 
What gburner said.

Many of these countries have political ideologies that are hostile to our own. We have a need to isolate our government at the internal operational level from these people; our nation is already leaning in the direction of global socialism as it is - the driving force at the core of current Euro government and elsewhere.

One will have to give way, one way or another. Our unique culture and ideology can not be expected to survive a gradual amalgamation with these people, for they are not going to accommodate our differences indefinately, and are not about to see certain things our way.
 
our nation is already leaning in the direction of global socialism as it is
Click to expand...

I don't get this at all. I don't read it as factual. I can think of good arguments to the contrary. There are more important things to worry about in my opinion.
 
Hell, let em' watch it

on CNN, like the rest of us! But seriously, I would be interested in a report from anyone who sees any of those goons around on election day. They'll probably send thousands of them here to kali. The San Francisco school district wants to start letting illegal aliens vote in school elections. Oh, well.
 
If they're not gonna accomodate our differences or see things our way then they should be dealt with as enemies and threats to our way of life. Then it comes down to how many divisions do they have, how much throw weight, etc.

The question remains...if we are the last, best hope for mankind on this earth, why are we even considering change in the face of outside pressure? The answer...
dispite all of our greatness, our biggest weakness is self doubt. I nags at us incessantly. The folks who want to pull us down know this and will use it to destroy our confidence; our ability to be decisive in terms of soveriegn decisision making. The world has hated the US since it's birth, tried to kill it in it's cradle and has secretly longed for someone to kick our asses permanently. Now that we are in the lead, they are scared to death.

I say let 'em change to accomodate us. You never hobble the lead dog.
 
The question remains...if we are the last, best hope for mankind on this earth, why are we even considering change in the face of outside pressure?
Click to expand...

... Because much of the pressure is coming from the inside. I do not think enough people understand how deep the inroads have been made by those on the "outside".

It is written off on a popular level as being "this group" or that; be it "the liberals", "the media" or what have you. But it broadly spans the corporate world - and both political parties - as evidenced by their willingness and continued progress down the path. Other issues rise and fall, but this is one of several areas in which it matter not which party holds the majority in Congress, the WH, or "the polls"; it keeps on rolling the same direction one step at a time.
 
Have them send an observer to my town's polling place. They will get an earfull from the pollworkers!

They will get an education and find out about the real america.

Course we will probably have to put in an extra porta potty for the additional folk. And they better bring their own lunch cause it's out in the sticks and nothing around it but farms and cabins.

If they hang around an extra day I'll volunteer to take them shooting :D
 
Manipulate media and poll

Howard Dean is a vivid sample of how insider group to use media and intelligence to manipulate an election.

1. In last October, when Dean became a threat to Bush, they at first threw out Wesley Clark to block him. Media said that Clark was the only one in Democratic Party which could beat Bush. ( try to divert the support of Dean to Clark) CNN-USA Today Gallop poll said Clark lead over Bush at the rate of 49% to 46%. How could they get such a result when not much people knew who Clark was?

Even media beat the drum to blow up Clark, the general has never led in any of Demo's primary. Where is the base of that 49% vs Bush's 46%?

2. When they failed to block Dean by Clark, inside group threw out Kerry. Kerry won the first Demo Primary in January. The tactic was the same. Now they said Kerry is the one who can beat Bush. The problem is how could Dean, as a leading candidate in Iowa, suddenly dropped into a result of 18% vs Kerry's 38%? Media use a word "Iowa surprise" to explain this drama. It's not convincible. Consider Demo candidates have similar stands on important issues, that 75% Iowa voters are anti-war, that Kerry has voted for Iraq war authorization Bill.

3. Same show had acted in recall of California. Before the recall, poll said Arnold had 26% vs Bustmonte's(Demo)28%. Another Rep's candidate, Mclintok, had a steady 14%. Mclintok wouldn't pull out the campaign after persuation. Then CNN poll suddenly boosted Arnold a 40% vs Bustmonte's 28%. (with Mclintok's 14% unchanged)
Obviosly, inside group once thought Mclintok would pull out, but he didn't. Of course that wouldn't trouble them, because they control election office thus they control the result. (just like in Florida election) All they had to do was immediately threw out a poll to justify Arnold's victory.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.
 
1. I agree, there are all kinds of political infighting between candidates when there are 7 or 8 running. You end up getting off track, though. Everyone knew who Clark was. Telephone polls typically aren't very accurate. 46% to 49% is probably too close to call.

2.+3. There are these cool things called exit polls. When they match fairly closely with poll results, it becomes _very_ difficult to argue that anyone's manipulating the election by the margins you claim.

Please provide sources for your polls. We have no idea how far apart they were, or even what they were measuring, precisely.
 
What good is Bush?

What good is Bush?

1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.

e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.

Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq

Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...te_bush_dinar&cid=1521&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.

4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.

To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?

No wonder he is the big joke abroad. George W. Bush is a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards in Canada.

Bush wins fest's top 'stupid award'
But U.S. president loses to Saddam for Just for Laughs' lifetime awards
Nelson Wyatt
The Canadian Press
July 25, 2004

MONTREAL - The November elections may still be ahead of him, but U.S. President George W. Bush has already come out a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards.

Mr. Bush was a dominating presence at the second edition of the awards presented at the Just for Laughs comedy festival taking place in Montreal

Mr. Black said the awards "celebrate the pros" and "perfection in idiocy" because real stupidity is hard work.

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawa....html?id=e3860266-8e91-439e-a02c-bcb68dc5382b

Bush, with his low IQ, even not dare to face kerry's challenge to debate each week. Yet, media from time to time said Bush is leading over Kerry. Do you believe it?
--------------
This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.
 
About as bad as this................

"House Democrats Urge UN Supervision of Presidential Election
By Roch Hammond
CNSNews.com Correspondent
August 02, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - At least 13 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are calling for the United Nations to supervise this year's American presidential election, four years after one of the closest races in history.

Rep. Corrine Brown's home state is Florida, site of the historic ballot recount in 2000 that eventually provided Republican George W. Bush with the margin of victory over Democrat Al Gore. Brown is perhaps the most outspoken advocate for United Nations supervision of the 2004 election. On July 16 as members of the House discussed the idea, she charged that President Bush "stole" the election in 2000 and called Bush's victory a "United States coup d'etat."

"We need to make sure that it doesn't happen again," Brown said in taunting Bush and the Republican Party. "Over and over again, after the election, when you stole the election, you came back here and said 'get over it.' No, we're not going to 'get over it' and we want verification from the world."

She was subsequently censured by the U.S. House and her remarks were stricken from the congressional record.

But Brown is one of at least a dozen members of Congress who want U.N. supervision of the elections, not only in Florida but across America. It's a responsibility that has traditionally been left up to state governments.

Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Carolyn Maloney of New York, Barbara Lee of California, Jerrold Nadler of New York, Joseph Crowley of New York, Raul Grijalva of Arizona, Mike Honda of California, Ed Towns of New York, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, William Clay of Missouri and Julia Carson of Indiana made the formal request in a June 30 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Later, Brown lent her support to the effort.

"We firmly believe in the importance of international human rights law and its applicability and relevance to the U.S. as a member of the international community," the letter to Annan stated. "Given the deeply troubling events of the 2000 election and the growing concerns about the lack of necessary reforms and potential for abuse in the 2004 election, we believe that the engagement of international election monitors has the potential to speed the necessary reform as well as reduce the likelihood of questionable practices and voter disenfranchisement on Election Day."

John B. Townsend, communications director for Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), said U.N. involvement is necessary to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election.

Townsend said it was a "dirty little secret" that electoral irregularities had occurred in the United States before 2000, but said that the closeness of the race four years ago made the issue more pressing.

... [E]ven before the 2000 election there were concerns about the outcome of elections and whether people were being deliberately disenfranchised," Townsend stated.

Johnson believes there were cases in which the ballots of would-be voters were deliberately discarded, but that in other cases the discarded votes were due to "flaws" in the system since some minority communities were using older voting machines.

Townsend said the U.S. "routinely" asks the United Nations to supervise elections in other nations, so the government should now ask for the monitoring to be done in America. "There are so many questions both nationally and internationally about the outcome of [the 2000 election]," he said.

Jenny Nash, press secretary with the Florida Department of State, said there would be no repeat of 2000.

Nash said news reports claiming that new electronic voter machines were malfunctioning, were "absolutely incorrect." She called those reports "unprofessional" and "inexcusable," and said they were designed to "erode" voter confidence.

Hundreds of elections have been held since the use of the new technology, Nash said, and there has "not been one vote lost." She said news agencies have "incorrectly" stated that "under votes," a situation in which a particular issue, contest or even the entire ballot, is ignored, constitute "lost votes." There are many reasons why votes are not cast, such as "protest votes" or a lack of information on a candidate or issue, according to Nash.

The new voting machines eliminate the need for "determining voter intent," a task that burdened officials in previous election, Nash said. The machines also prevent "over votes," in which the person votes more than once on an issue or candidate.

Nash maintained that there is no possibility for malfeasance because there is no network of electronic machines, the voting units are individualized and there are paper "audit trails" to document the votes of citizens.

She stated that Florida's certification standards are "the most rigorous" in the nation, and "security is a huge part of that process" to ensure that the votes are accurate and secure.

Nash also said she is opposed to the idea of U.N. supervision of the November election.

Jeff Deist, press secretary for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) asserted that the United Nations does not have the legal or moral authority to supervise American elections.

"The U.N. is rife with corruption and political intrigue; the U.N. is the last organization on earth that ought to be judging [America's] elections," Deist said.

He added that the notion that U.N. supervision would make American elections fairer and more accurate wa "preposterous."

Officials from the United Nations declined to comment for this article since the U.S. government has not asked the international organization to supervise its presidential election.

The Congressional Black Caucus, ardent supporters of the idea because of alleged widespread African-American "disenfranchisement," could not be reached for comment.

Officials from the congressional offices of Corrine Brown, Joseph Crowley, Julia Carson and others favoring U.N. supervision did not return phone calls requesting comment."

How about these traitors!?
What a bunch of rectums, I sure hope they get voted out of office!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top