International team to monitor US. Presidential Election

[plover]

btw that same invitation has also been offered by independent states to observe their own election processes...before it was offered by the federal government..as is the right of those independent states.

I just want to make sure I understand your wording: by "independent states" you mean individual states within the U.S., yes?

 

[plover]

russ_watters and JohnDubYa:
C'mon guys, you don't have to read the long post if you don't want to, but if you're going to comment on something, you should at least read enough of it to know what the argument actually is. Both of your comments give the impression that you only read the two paragraphs you quoted -- a theory I much prefer to one implying that you actually did read the whole thing, as in that case you either completely misunderstood me, which strains credulity as you both read better than that, or you chose to misrepresent my argument, which seems unlikely as I have no reason to believe either of you to be intellectually dishonest.

(Oh, and if you do read it, interpreting my post as a narrow defense of international observers would, of course, just be silly... )

This thread concerns the elections of 2000 and 2004. If you want to post a diatribe of your dislike for Bush (I would call him George W., but I hardly know him -- snicker), why not post it in another thread? Otherwise, you just muck up the conversation.

I'm not giving a diatribe against Bush, I'm giving the context for my point. There are a lot of people who believe these allegations, there are a lot of people who don't, whether you or I believe them is irrelevant to the argument; even whether there really is evidence to support either side is irrelevant. What is relevant is the degree of antagonism between the two camps, and where that antagonism might lead come November.

Conspiracy theory knows no party lines: had the decision been made in the opposite direction, conservatives would be the ones making up the conspiracy theories. This does not mean that the US needs international help to avoid having the same situation happen again.

The point I'm making would apply equally to any other administration at the same pass. A refusal to deal with the tension within the country with anything other than obfuscation and hubris would be dangerous for any party. While I can be accused of taking pot shots at right-wing journalism, I don't see my overall point as a partisan issue. My choice of outcome is deduced from the actions of the administration -- other administrations, of whatever stripe, might do the same, or some other equally awful thing. An administration, again of whatever stripe, that could be trusted not to do something stupid, would most likely never have allowed the situation to reach the stage we're at to begin with.

I think that it's important to show the world that even the United States is willing to open itself up to monitoring, it gives others less of an excuse to not be open to it as well.

Reasonable, except (as with Ivan's statement) that that assumes we have the same electoral issues as Iraq. We don't.

kat's statement is a general principle, it doesn't require the assumption we have any electoral problems, let alone the same ones as Iraq. (Yes, I know that doesn't mean you have any greater approval for it... )

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where did I say I didn't trust them? I trust them just fine - I just don't want them here. Your perceived double-standard is a misunderstanding of my point of view.

Fair enough. I guess I was speaking to JW more than you with that statement. How then do you feel that we should address the apparent failure of the US election process? How do we address the loss of faith expressed by many?

It seems pretty clear to me that the winner take all system is the problem. If the popular vote determined the winner then local corruption would have a much smaller impact on the results. As it stands now, corruption in a few counties, in a swing state like Florida, can change the results for the entire nation.

 

[russ_watters]

russ_watters and JohnDubYa:
C'mon guys, you don't have to read the long post if you don't want to, but if you're going to comment on something, you should at least read enough of it to know what the argument actually is. Both of your comments give the impression that you only read the two paragraphs you quoted

I'll be honest - I did only skim your post and that's all that caught my eye. I've read it all now.

The point I'm making would apply equally to any other administration at the same pass.

I know. That was my point: If the tables had been turned, we'd still be in exactly the same situation we are today regarding the electoral process.

The rest of your post, plover, seemed to be saying that appearance=reality (in politics) and we should strive to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I agree on both points (in general). Votors, by and large, are swayed by appearances: but not me. I want reality. But in either case, I don't see how international observers will help that.

Something else caught my eye though:

My own opinion is that the minimum that should be done is for the administration to disallow use of any of the current generation of electronic voting machines -- the machines raise too many questions, and the current atmosphere is too volatile for their use to be justified. I am certainly no expert on the conduct of elections, but I'm sure there are other steps that could be taken to help restore the appearance of propriety.

What!? Electronic machines have been used in many places in the country for upwards of 20 years and there security/accuracy has never been in question. The newest crop add computerization, but there isn't any real problem with them: only perception. And in this case, the perception is being pushed for the sake of obfuscation: had there been electronic balloting in Florida, there would have been no opportunity for Gore to drag-out his challenge to the election. No hanging chads = no opportunity for obfuscation and the Democrats want to be able to challenge the election. They want to increase the possibility of error. They want to increase the appearance of impropriety.

People do crazy things because of flawed perceptions: my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together, then take separate planes because of the flawed perception that airplanes are dangerous. A lot of people have that perception. That's their problem, not mine.

This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.

[edit:continue rant] This is now and always has been my problem with the Democratic party. It has always seemed to me that the Dems are the appearances party. They do things that sound good, feel good, give the perception of being good - but whether those things are, actually good is irrelevant. Its no wonder the Democratic party is still led by Bill Clinton: govern by opinion poll and if it feels good, do it: Smoke pot, get your rocks off with an intern while on the phone conducting national business, lob a few cruise missiles (at most) in response to an attack on our country, but good God, don't ever actually get your hands dirty. Damn, hippies piss me off.

[/rant]

 

[russ_watters]

How then do you feel that we should address the apparent failure of the US election process? How do we address the loss of faith expressed by many?

As should be apparent from my rant, the way to fix the problems is to fix the problems! Isn't that how things are supposed to work? Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out. Or are perceptions really more important than reality?

In any case, observers don't fix problems. We already know what the problems are, right? Hanging chads, difficulty with military balloting were the main issues in 2000. Having an observer tell us that would be redundant. The solution to those problems: both of those are easily correctible with electronic voting.

The purged votors list and the possibility of polling-place tampering may be tougher, but they are still correctible. First off, the list needs to be in the open and there needs to be an appeals process: send everyone on the list a letter and give them a chance to respond. It really shouldn't be that hard to make an accurate list of all the convicted felons in the state. Polling place tampering could probably be fixed with a video camera: when people know they are on film, their behavior magically improves.

It seems pretty clear to me that the winner take all system is the problem. If the popular vote determined the winner then local corruption would have a much smaller impact on the results. As it stands now, corruption in a few counties, in a swing state like Florida, can change the results for the entire nation.

That would decrease the chance of a statistical tie, but I consider the logic of our founding fathers to be sound on this issue. I think the electoral college should stay.

Anyway, I still am not seeing solutions from Democrats here. With every post, you guys are strengthening my perception that Democrats aren't interested in fixing problems, only affecting perceptions. Do you guys have solutions or not? Can observers have real positive impact or not?

 

[Prometheus]

Anyway, I still am not seeing solutions from Democrats here.

Who are you calling Democrats? Those who support observers?

Can observers have real positive impact or not?

There are other forms of government in the world where voting takes place. Feedback from people with similar experience from a different perspective certainly has the potential to be of value.

Anyway, I still am not seeing solutions from Democrats here. With every post, you guys are strengthening my perception that Democrats aren't interested in fixing problems, only affecting perceptions.

I get the distinction impression that you are afraid of what the observers will say. Do you really think that only Democrats were upset by the unfortunate manner in which the election was decided in 2000?

As should be apparent from my rant, the way to fix the problems is to fix the problems! Isn't that how things are supposed to work? Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out. Or are perceptions really more important than reality?

In any case, observers don't fix problems. We already know what the problems are, right? Hanging chads, difficulty with military balloting were the main issues in 2000. Having an observer tell us that would be redundant. The solution to those problems: both of those are easily correctible with electronic voting.

The purged votors list and the possibility of polling-place tampering may be tougher, but they are still correctible. First off, the list needs to be in the open and there needs to be an appeals process: send everyone on the list a letter and give them a chance to respond. It really shouldn't be that hard to make an accurate list of all the convicted felons in the state. Polling place tampering could probably be fixed with a video camera: when people know they are on film, their behavior magically improves. That would decrease the chance of a statistical tie, but I consider the logic of our founding fathers to be sound on this issue. I think the electoral college should stay.

I didn't realize that you are the expert on voting procedures, such that you are able to identify and provide clear solutions to every single problem that exists. Why do we need professional observers when we have you? Where were you when we needed you in 2000?

 

[russ_watters]

Who are you calling Democrats? Those who support observers?

Yes - by and large, the democrats here seem to be in favor of the observers. If you're not a Democrat, fine - do you have a real benefit you see?

There are other forms of government in the world where voting takes place. Feedback from people with similar experience from a different perspective certainly has the potential to be of value.

Is that the purpose of these observers? I thought the purpose was to look for flaws in our process. Perhaps an international conference of election officials would be a better way to discuss the various electoral processes of different countries.

I get the distinction impression that you are afraid of what the observers will say. Do you really think that only Democrats were upset by the unfortunate manner in which the election was decided in 2000?

As you should be able to see in my last couple of posts, I was upset by the flaws that manifested themselves in the last election and I suggested ways to fix them. Sending for observers does nothing to fix the problems we already know exist.

I didn't realize that you are the expert on voting procedures, such that you are able to identify and provide clear solutions to every single problem that exists. Why do we need professional observers when we have you? Where were you when we needed you in 2000?

Indeed - it seems I'm the only one here suggesting solutions. But hey, that's the way politics seems to work these days: Dems complain and Repubs work on solutions. I'm still waiting for someone else to post a possible solution - heck, I don't even care if its a good solution - I just want to see that I'm not the only one here making an effort to think about solutions.

C'mon guys:

-How does inviting a UN observer constitute a solution to the hanging chads problem?
-How does inviting a UN observer fix the felons list?
-How does inviting a UN observer help ensure absentee ballots are properly cast?
-How does inviting a UN observer help keep dead Democrats from voting?

 

[Prometheus]

But hey, that's the way politics seems to work these days: Dems complain and Repubs work on solutions. I'm still waiting for someone else to post a possible solution - heck, I don't even care if its a good solution - I just want to see that I'm not the only one here making an effort to think about solutions.

You say that you want suggestions for solutions, even if not good suggestions. However, you reject the subject of this thread as not being a possible solution, even if not a good solution.

This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.

I find it odd that you call this absurd. You propose all of your wonderful solutions. Outside of this forum, what is the chance that any of your proposals will have any more impact on the rest of the world than this post of mine? All of your claims of wanting to do something, more so than the "Democrats" in this forum, yet for all of your ranting (as you styled it) your suggestions to this forum contribute nothing practical to the solution. Yet, you consider it absurd. I think that your rant does more for appearances than bringing about practical change in the country.

"Republican" proposals, as you call your proposals, seem to me like superficial attempts to patch some of the techincal glitches of the problem. This is useful, but not only type of problem. There is a systemic problem as well. When one person wins by 50 votes, when there is a margin of error of 600,000, then the election is a statistical tie. The behavior of Florida politicians after the incident showed great partisonship, in my opinion. There seemed to be no guidelines that made their actions overtly illegal. Then, the supreme court overstepped its bounds, in my opinion, by butting in. I would like to see a better procedure for handling statistical ties.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I get the feeling that those who favor the oversight don't reallly know what is going to take place. They don't know how the oversight is going to be administered (both Russ and I have asked multiple times with no response). They don't know what can be done if any improprieties are "found." They can't even seem to agree on whether the "observation" is benign with little influence on the election process, or oversight with the power to enforce proper election methods.

As for the latter point, student evaluations are one example of mere observation, not oversight. But they do have the power to influence faculty hiring decisions. Any faculty that singles out one classroom for evaluation and not others has made a conscious, subjective decision that could create an unfair situation for the instructor.

 

[Prometheus]

I get the feeling that those who favor the oversight don't reallly know what is going to take place. They don't know how the oversight is going to be administered (both Russ and I have asked multiple times with no response). They don't know what can be done if any improprieties are "found." They can't even seem to agree on whether the "observation" is benign with little influence on the election process, or oversight with the power to enforce proper election methods.

I think that you are correct. I also think that those who favor oversight don't really know what is going to take place if there is no oversight. I think that this holds true for those who oppose oversight.

I get the feeling that those who supported the war in Iraq had no idea what would take place, other than an overall feeling of the value of the action. In your opinion, should the war have been avoided because of this uncertainty, or should we have jumped into the unknown as we did, without absolute knowledge? You didn't support the war, did you, without really knowing all of the ramifications? How could you, and yet be against the notion here? After all, the potential for harm here is far less than the potential for harm in the war.

 

[JohnDubYa]

In your opinion, should the war have been avoided because of this uncertainty, or should we have jumped into the unknown as we did, without absolute knowledge?

The last time I looked, we knew damn well that Saddam (good friend of mine, so I call him by his first name) was murdering hundreds of thousands, that sanctions were killing people every day, and that he was ignoring UN resolutions. We also knew that removing Saddam would put an end to his killing people every day, to ignoring UN resolutions, and the sanctions. There was little mystery in it for me.

 

[plover]

I'll be honest - I did only skim your post and that's all that caught my eye. I've read it all now.

Thanks for taking the time.

I know. That was my point: If the tables had been turned, we'd still be in exactly the same situation we are today regarding the electoral process.

I know it was your point. The implication of your comment seemed to be that it wasn't mine. I was just clarifying my position.

The rest of your post, plover, seemed to be saying that appearance=reality (in politics) and we should strive to avoid the appearance of impropriety. I agree on both points (in general).

These (more or less) are assumptions used in the argument, but are not the main point. The central idea is that the current set of appearances are more dangerously divisive than anything in recent memory, and that this is, in and of itself, a problem that needs addressing.

The problems in 2000, compunded by the perception that the attempts to fix them are politically compromised, make the issues surrounding voting procedures a likely flashpoint.

Votors, by and large, are swayed by appearances: but not me. I want reality.

I'm definitely in favor of reality too (when it's available ). But be careful with that word "reality": perceptions are not "more important than reality", they're simply a part of reality. In other words, one of things that's real is perceptions; perceptions are real enough to have real world consequences. If you've never been bitten in the ass by other people's perceptions, then you are one statistically freaky dude...

I expect it is usually the case that "Once the problems are fixed, the perceptions will work themselves out", and the sooner there's a real solution the better. However, there is the matter of timing. If the U.S. becomes seriously destabilized before "the perceptions work themselves out", then those who allow it to happen have the blood on their hands.

The current administration treats this problem with cavalier arrogance. As noted, there has already been a case where use of the new voting machines has led to an appearance of impropriety which was not properly resolved. Do you really want to see that repeated across the nation in a high stakes election? (At least the problem led California to cease using the machines.)

Voting, in a sense, is the ultimate national security issue: without fair and safe voting, the U.S. as we conceive it, ceases to exist. Voting machines need to be designed with the failure and error rates engineers use for any other application that people's lives depend on. Human error should be minimized, yes, but this is data that can be accumulated in a gross physical form, viewable by the human eye, which is still the standard for the interpretation of static visually accessible data.

When you complain about hanging chads, are you just arguing for a cleaner system? Or are you also ignoring the evidence that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts?

Given the problems that have been seen how would I design a voting system? Off the top of my head, here's some points that seem needed:

• Touch screens to make ballots easy to use and to solve language difficulties.
• Mechanically punched cards to prevent the whole chad problem.
• Larger holes punched in the cards to make checking them easier for voters.
• Some non-electronic means to allow voters to easily check that the card correctly reflects their choices. Election areas should be designed to make this step hard to skip without a conscious decision.
• Districts should have at least two different card reading machines, made by two different companies.
• Balloting machines and card reading machines must be built by different companies to independently established standards.
• Machine vetting must be independent of either type of machine manufacturer.
• No companies, company officers, or board members involved in this process may make political contributions.
• Those running for political office must divest themselves of all ties to such companies.

All of this is just the musing of someone with no real expertise. I imagine some of the ideas are silly or overkill. But the point is, this is an arena where both the mechanism and perceptions count a great deal, and both areas must be addressed. Unfortunately, I've heard nothing to convince me that the mechanical issues are being addressed well (if you can point me to any information at a source I'm likely to take seriously, i.e. not the Heritage Foundation or some such, I'd be interested to see it), and as I've been saying, the approach to the appearances could hardly be worse.

The right wing press, far more often than not, also just adds fuel to the fire. Their response to 2000 is usually something like "We won, and Democrats are a bunch of whiny losers." which, as you may guess, does little to help the problem, especially as it reads any attempt to correct the problem as an attempt to retroactively alter what happened in 2000. The problem with 2000 was the fact of the controversy, and lack of a means to settle it with fairness, much more than the specific outcome.

It is sad that you, yourself, are providing an example of this problem by a rant that seems to have little to do with my point. The impression it gives is that anyone who expresses liberal views, but doesn't phrase things in a way that exactly suits you, is ok to caricature, whether you know that you're reading them correctly or not.

But in either case, I don't see how international observers will help that.

As I said, I don't know enough to have a decided opinion on this. I incline toward giving the idea the benefit of the doubt, as it has been a useful tool in other situations. But then, I'm not a belligerent isolationist...

What!? Electronic machines have been used in many places in the country for upwards of 20 years and there security/accuracy has never been in question.

Interesting -- I was not aware of that. But how is it relevant if the current models are the problem?

The newest crop add computerization, but there isn't any real problem with them: only perception.

You're an expert in computer security, and you've tested them? What do you base this on?

And in this case, the perception is being pushed for the sake of obfuscation:

You're losing me here. You appear to be wandering off into partisan land...

had there been electronic balloting in Florida, there would have been no opportunity for Gore to drag-out his challenge to the election.

While I'm sure this a finely honed interpretation, there are others.

No hanging chads = no opportunity for obfuscation

No paper trail = no meaningful checks of fairness. And when did I ever say that chads or obfuscation were a good idea?

and the Democrats want to be able to challenge the election. They want to increase the possibility of error. They want to increase the appearance of impropriety.

What was it you said about conspiracy theories?

People do crazy things because of flawed perceptions: my aunt and uncle used to drive to the airport together, then take separate planes because of the flawed perception that airplanes are dangerous. A lot of people have that perception. That's their problem, not mine.

Not a good analogy. The whole point of what I'm saying is that is a case where people's misperceptions may end up affecting you.

This drives me nuts: you guys want to do things for appearances, but don't want to actually fix the problems. Its absurd.

Let's see. I suppose I have to assume that I'm being included as part of "you guys", this means that you've made some kind of deduction that I don't actually want to fix the problems... Hmmm... I'll write this one off as temporary insanity...

[edit:continue rant] This is now and always has been my problem with the Democratic party.

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic party? Sorry. (No really, it's just the phrasing. And besides, you said you were ranting here so I don't have to give rational responses... )

It has always seemed to me that the Dems are the appearances party. They do things that sound good, feel good, give the perception of being good - but whether those things are, actually good is irrelevant.

That's ok, I've always thought of the GOP as the appearances party. As long as they can get things to appear ok to the voters so that they won't be held accountable, then it doesn't matter who actually gets hurt by what they do.

Its no wonder the Democratic party is still led by Bill Clinton: govern by opinion poll and if it feels good, do it: Smoke pot, get your rocks off with an intern while on the phone conducting national business, lob a few cruise missiles (at most) in response to an attack on our country, but good God, don't ever actually get your hands dirty.

Sit and read children's books while the U.S. is under attack and the World Trade Center is in flames...

Damn, hippies piss me off.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

[/rant]

So to conclude:

Would it be better if voters stuck to facts in making their decisions? I expect so. But any quick glance at scientific history reveals that even people who care about factual evidence will disagree on what constitutes evidence.

And if you know for sure which of your opinions are based on fact and which based on appearance, then congratulations, you're the first person ever...

 

[russ_watters]

You say that you want suggestions for solutions, even if not good suggestions. However, you reject the subject of this thread as not being a possible solution, even if not a good solution.

The subject of this thread is not a solution because it doesn't do anything to change the problems I listed. Unless you can tell me how it addresses them... (I've asked a good half dozen times by now and still nothing)

I find it odd that you call this absurd. You propose all of your wonderful solutions. Outside of this forum, what is the chance that any of your proposals will have any more impact on the rest of the world than this post of mine?

Well, certainly my solutions would have more of an impact than your post. Unless you want to post some solutions...

All of your claims of wanting to do something, more so than the "Democrats" in this forum, yet for all of your ranting (as you styled it) your suggestions to this forum contribute nothing practical to the solution.

I suggested real actions that will have an effect. If you don't think they will have much of an effect, fine: Propose your own solutions.

"Republican" proposals, as you call your proposals, seem to me like superficial attempts to patch some of the techincal glitches of the problem.

Fine. Propose your own solutions.

I would like to see a better procedure for handling statistical ties.

Fine. Propose your own solutions.

When you complain about hanging chads, are you just arguing for a cleaner system? Or are you also ignoring the evidence that hand counts are more reliable than machine counts?

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

All of this is just the musing of someone with no real expertise.

But, thank you anyway! Finally after 3 pages, someone else has proposed some solutions! For the purpose of this thread, I don't care if your solutions will or won't work - and I don't care if you think mine will or won't work. The point is, your proposals above and my proposals in previous posts, specifically address specific faults in the system. That's what solutions do. Observers, on the other hand, aren't a solution. Observers may suggest a solution or point out a problem, but isn't that redundant? The problems have been beaten to death. We know what they are. Instead of observing them happen again, they should have been fixed already.

 

[kat]

Nothing is wrong with that. But I don't want them here. Maybe its just old-fashioned belligernt isolationism...naa, there's more to it than that. Its the same reason we're not in the world court: When you're the king of the mountain, everyone wants to take their shot at you. The observers could do a fine job - but you know the world community loved the 2000 election crap: more ammo for global politics.

The "world community" will take it's shots with or without observers. The fact of the matter is, the observers have a good healthy love and respect of democracy and know where the strength in and for democracy eminates from. Every observer I have spoken with, from the EU to the UN and the OCSE repeatedly speaks of the United States being the leader in Democracy, not only in our methods within our country (although it's been noted that our electorial system maybe somewhat outdated and could be improved upon) but also in our support of Democracy and voting rights outside of our country. These people don't want to bite the hand that feedst them. Without the U.S. strength push for Democracy aorund the world..they don't really have any big dog that gives a ****. Really, I don't care what the media is shouting, we all know that is more a source of disinformation. That is not the goal or intent of any of the observers that I am familiar with.

Reasonable, except (as with Ivan's statement) that that assumes we have the same electoral issues as Iraq. We don't.

No, it doesn't. I've repeatedly pointed out the difference between observing and supervising. Also, you'll note that I said "monitoring". I do think that we can afford to open ourselves up to "monitoring" but that is not what observing is. Small difference in meaning, but important nonetheless.

Presumably these observers will at some point offer an opinion...

They will offer a statement. That statement may include ideas on improvement and also comment on strengths. They will also may take ideas with them that may be applied to other countries. The agreement for this invitation was made long before the issue of the 2000 election.

Like I said to Ivan: the US isn't Iraq. Conspiracy theory knows no party lines: had the decision been made in the opposite direction, conservatives would be the ones making up the conspiracy theories.

Conservatives are still making up conspiracy theories... The fact of the matter is that the OCSE's mission is being reported as the equivelent of a U.N. Supervisory team, it is NOT the same. In fact, if you read the reports...the only people who are suggesting that it is ARE the Dem's and the media. All reports by the OCSE and the state dept. are not suggesting it is the same. It makes me wonder why the Dems are so quick to allow an observeration team to replace the suggested monitoring team. Coudl it be that crooked Dem voting practices would equally be at risk?!

This does not mean that the US needs international help to avoid having the same situation happen again.

That's not their mission. The OCSE is not being sent to help avoid any situation. They are coming to observe...as they did in both France and Spain, as they will in other Democracies. As any party or person in this country has a right to do..even foreigners..we have a RIGHT to observe. They can not interfere, nor can they break our election laws. Check the laws out, and you will see what their limitations are. They are limited by those laws...

Here's that belligerent isolationism again: I don't care what the world community (specifically the UN itself) thinks. The UN has demonstrated, on virtually every opportunity, that it is inept at making positive changes in the world. So again - if that's all they are going to be here for, why even have them here at all?

This is not the U.N., it's membership is limited to democratic nations...I suggest you familiarize yourself with the organization.

I'm hearing a lot of re-assurance that there won't be any bad effects - but again: what possible good can come from this? The only answer I have heard to this question is 'it'll help world opinion of the US.' I don't consider that a compelling reason to do it.

I pointed out the good that could come from it, and I think it went beyond world opinion of the U.S. The greatest benefit is to strengthen democracy, the knowledge of what works best, what doesn't...sharing that knowledge...A goal of the OCSE is to strengthen democracy...and spread democracy...around the world. Making a sham of the U.S. elections and undermining democracy is not how the OCSE operates, historically or practically.

 

[kat]

I just want to make sure I understand your wording: by "independent states" you mean individual states within the U.S., yes?

Yes, that is what I meant.

 

[russ_watters]

That's not their mission. The OCSE is not being sent to help avoid any situation. They are coming to observe...

Kat, from the article:

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

That certainly implies to me that they were invited to help prevent the same issues we had in 2000 from happening again. Further, others in this thread have implied that the observers are a good idea because they might help prevent some of the 2000 problems from happening again.

My point from the beginning is that if they are only "observers," then their presence here is at best, pointless. If they are only "observers," then their presence here does nothing to help fix the issues from the 2000 election.

This is not the U.N., it's membership is limited to democratic nations...I suggest you familiarize yourself with the organization.

My mistake - there are apparently two separate issues here. The initial request for monitoring was to the UN and it was rejected. That morphed into the OSCE request. But, same issue: is this supposed to help ensure fair elections or not? Some Democrats seem to think so:

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

 

[kat]

Russ- What do you consider to be the negative results of the last time the OCSE observed that would suggest we shouldn't have invited them to observe again?

 

[kat]

Kat, from the article: That certainly implies to me that they were invited to help prevent the same issues we had in 2000 from happening again. Further, others in this thread have implied that the observers are a good idea because they might help prevent some of the 2000 problems from happening again.

My point from the beginning is that if they are only "observers," then their presence here is at best, pointless. If they are only "observers," then their presence here does nothing to help fix the issues from the 2000 election.

Well, I think if you re-read what I have said...and you read not what the Dem's are saying but the Paris agreement, what the statehouse is saying and what the OCSE is saying your question should be...why are the Dem's misrepresenting the intent of the invitation, and why are they suggesting the invitation was given as a result of the 2000 election when...an invitation has been given for elections before 2000?

 

[kat]

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

Well, again...they arent monitors..and have not said they were. Why are the Dem's misrepresenting this? and secondly...they're suggesting that the invitation was in response to their request for U.N. supervision...which is not the same as observation...BUT the agreement to invite them for elections...was made in 1990 AND the invitation has been offered consistently since shortly after the 1990 agreement. There's some political posturing going on that is not representing the intent of the invitations. Bush may have used the ongoing invitation as a way of usurping the power of the Dem's call for the U.N. supervision (again, not the same as observation), but are the Dem's misrepresenting their mission to save face? or? I don't know...but evidently it's worked as the Dem's on this board seem to feel that the OCSE's presence same as having a U.N. team of supervisors. Although, I feel that even in a supervisory position the OCSE is far better qualified.

 

[russ_watters]

(sorry about my editing practices - my last post wasn't finished when you started replying)

Russ- What do you consider to be the negative results of the last time the OCSE observed that would suggest we shouldn't have invited them to observe again?

Cute - kat, my position was/is that "no negative results" does not equal a positive result. I have never considered 'it probably won't hurt' to be a compelling reason to do anything.

Well, I think if you re-read what I have said...and you read not what the Dem's are saying but the Paris agreement, what the statehouse is saying and what the OCSE is saying your question should be...why are the Dem's misrepresenting the intent of the invitation, and why are they suggesting the invitation was given as a result of the 2000 election when...an invitation has been given for elections before 2000?

Fair enough - and good question. Perhaps that should be the focus of this thread. Then again, doesn't the opportunity for politicizing the observer's job constitute a negative result...?

 

[kat]

(sorry about my editing practices - my last post wasn't finished when you started replying) Cute - kat, my position was/is that "no negative results" does not equal a positive result. I have never considered 'it probably won't hurt' to be a compelling reason to do anything.

Are you familiar with the results at all? positive or negative?

Fair enough - and good question. Perhaps that should be the focus of this thread. Then again, doesn't the opportunity for politicizing the observer's job constitute a negative result...?

I think the opportunity for politicizing exist with or without the invitation therefor the invitation is not the basis for the negative result. I think the greater issue is why are people who believe themselves to be informed buying into the politicizing instead of becoming informed?

 

[russ_watters]

Are you familiar with the results at all? positive or negative?

No, I'm not.

Thinking about this more, and in fairness to you, I need to amend my objection: Though I'm still not sure why they would be here, if they are invited in fulfillment of a treaty obligation and this year's invitation is consistent with past invitations, I have no obection.

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

 

[kat]

Thinking about this more, and in fairness to you, I need to amend my objection: Though I'm still not sure why they would be here, if they are invited in fulfillment of a treaty obligation and this year's invitation is consistent with past invitations, I have no obection.

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

Thank you, and I agree!

 

[JohnDubYa]

What I do object to is the suggestions/implications made by Democratic politicians and posters in this thread that the purpose would/should be to fix problems manifest in the 2000 election.

Yes, this has really muddied the issue for everyone concerned. Unfortunately, I think some are hailing the invitation for "oversight" as evidence that the 2000 election results were incorrect.

 

[amp]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

 

[kat]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

It's fact that elections have problems, and there is always room for improvement. It is NOT fact that the invitation given to the OCSE was a result of "improprieties" in the 2000 election.

 

[amp]

Nor did I say that, Kat. It is known for a fact that even after the fiasco with the felons list in Florida... They tried to do it again ...in secret at that!. Its possibly only because of a court order the conspiracy (if you try the same illegality more than once that's pre-meditated) was uncovered and scrubbed(?)

 

[BobG]

Well its a fact that there where improprieties in the 2000 election, with the greatest and most obvious occurring in Florida. ..."two Florida secretaries of state - Sandra Mortham and Katherine Harris, both protégées of Governor Jeb Bush- ordered 57,700 "ex-felons," who are prohibited from voting by state law, to be removed from voter rolls. (In the thirty-five states where former felons can vote, roughly 90 percent vote Democratic.)" Is it true?

Your post is a little unclear on how this was an impropriety.

First, the 57,700 is a little misleading. Felons were prohibited from voting by legally passed state laws.

Conflicting with state law is a constitutional requirement to honor legal rulings of other states. Of the 57,000+ felons, 2837 had their voting rights restored (or never taken away) by the state in which they committed their felony. Florida was legally bound to honor those voting rights regardless of their own laws regarding felons.

The method in which Florida allowed felons from other states to 'regain' their voting rights is the issue you're talking about. Since the felons had their voting rights before they moved to Florida, they should not have had to do anything to 'regain' their voting rights.

And Florida was guilty as charged.

Rather than let it stand, it chose an alternate method of 'regaining' voting rights, which was equally in violation of the constitution.

For what it's worth, even 2837 felons denied their voting rights might have been enough to make a difference in the 2000 election. Considering the percentage of ex-felons with voting rights who do vote (around 30%) and their voting tendencies, a Democratic candidate would have been likely to pick up an extra 700 votes.

Considering the inconsistency with which each voting precinct applied State policies on expunging voter lists and restoring voter rights (as applicable) the 700 would be far from a firm number. It was most likely significantly less than that.

 

[amp]

Actually, Mr. Palast found that 94,000 voters had their names removed of which 91,000 were errorneous, most were black a predominately democratic voting block. Strangely enough in the same list there were hardly any hispanics, a largely republican voting block due to the Cuban population that hates Castro and votes predominately republican. Using the same standard to max the list there should have been a lot more on the list.

 

[amp]

The list was comprised of voters who had never commited a felony - there was even one a person on the list with a date of conviction that was in future so far that the felony had yet to happen..!

 

[BobG]

Incorrectly putting non-felons on the list, especially with such a strange coincidental demographic grouping, is a valid issue. It's hard not to at least suspect a little intent behind numbers like those.

As I said, it was a little hard to figure out exactly the point you were trying to make, originally.

I saw the issue of 'other state felons' as frustration on the part of Florida (but, illegal regardless of their feelings). The constitution requires honoring legal rulings from other states, but, in this case, you had a zero sum game where both of the legal rulings from two separate states could not be honored, since they were in direct opposition to each other. Florida was put in the position of having to allow the rights of other states to trump their own, even within their own state borders.

 

[kat]

Actually, Mr. Palast found that 94,000 voters had their names removed of which 91,000 were errorneous, most were black a predominately democratic voting block. Strangely enough in the same list there were hardly any hispanics, a largely republican voting block due to the Cuban population that hates Castro and votes predominately republican. Using the same standard to max the list there should have been a lot more on the list.

I think this was debated and disproved in another thread. Including the fictional majority of hispanics are cuban line. Cuban's only make up 34% of the hispanic population in Florida and even at that...you cannot make the assumption that past criminals vote republican.

 

[amp]

If you kindly show me, I'd be much obliged. My links:http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2

Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.

No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.

link: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2

Together the lists comprised nearly 1 percent of Florida?s electorate and nearly 3 percent of its African-American voters. Most of the voters (such as "David Butler," (1); a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate and race matched - or nearly matched - one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. Neither DBT nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches. DBT, which frequently is hired by the F.B.I. to conduct manhunts, originally proposed using address histories and financial records to confirm the names, but the state declined the cross-checks. In Harris?s elections office files, next to DBT?s sophisticated verification plan, there is a hand-written note: ?DON?T NEED.?

Thomas Alvin Cooper (2), twenty-eight, was flagged because of a crime for which he will be convicted in the year 2007

.

The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it.

Wallace McDonald (5), sixty-four, lost his right to vote in 2000, though his sole run-in with the law was a misdemeanor in 1959. (He fell asleep on a bus-stop bench.) Of the "matches' on these lists, the civil-rights commission estimated that at least 14 percent - or 8,000 voters, nearly 15 times Bush's official margin of victory - were false. DBT claims it warned officials "a significant number of people who were not a felon would be included on the list"; but the state, the company now says, "wanted there to be more names than were actually verified."

SILENCE OF THE MEDIA LAMBS: THE ELECTION STORY NEVER TOLD
www.tompaine.com
Thursday May 24, 2001
Investigative reporting about voting rights violations in the US have been page one news---in Britain.

A transcript of an interview - http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=29&row=2

 

[kat]

If you kindly show me, I'd be much obliged. Do you trust the US government to run an honest election?

Here's the thread. That might be a good place for you to post your above information...as none of what you have posted tells us why you would misrepresent the intention of the invitation to the OCSE to observe U.S. Elections.

 

[amp]

I did use the word 'overseers' in my first post on the thread, sorry, I meant 'observers' as you see if you read to the end of the reply. I didn't even mention the OCSE, Jimmy Carter would be fine and any org. he trusts would be fine with me.