Full Version: U.N. election monitors requested
QUOTE
Worried about the fairness of the upcoming U.S. presidential election, several House members have asked the United Nations to "deploy election observers" across the country. Recalling the contentious Florida vote count in 2000, the lawmakers urged the international body to "ensure free and fair elections in America," said a statement by Florida Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort, Agence France-Presse reported. The letter was signed by nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic.
(From Worldnetdaily )
Questions for debate:
1.)In light of the problems that we had in the 2000 election, do we need U.N. observation of the process?
2.)Why would we worry about U.N. observation in the firt place? Wouldn't it be a way to show them how it's done?
3.)If the U.N. said the election process was broken or unfair, how would you view that conclusion after the 2004 election?
4.)Would Instant Runoff Voting solve our problems?
Personally, I think both GOP & democratic voters have a legitimate right to complain about the election process. The Republicans complained that key voters in Florida and other areas didn't show up to vote because it was announced that Gore won Florida prematurely. Democrats complain about "false-positive" election screening in which people with similar names to felons were knowingly tossed out so as to guarantee a more "fair" election. I believe we might be headed for the same territory this time around as well, since only a token effort has ben undertaken to remedy this problem.
I think it is kinda funny to appeal to an organization made up largely of dictatorships and autocracies could oversee elections in the US. Perhaps they could send Chinese, Cuban, and Egyptian delegates to Terra Haute, Indiana to ensure that everything goes smoothly? 
The real sign that a democracy has gone wrong is when the procedures set in place to resolve election disputes is not followed. When the President of a country dissolves the Congress, or modifies election rules unfairly, or prevents voters from casting unfavorable votes (such as armed guards at the polls).
The US followed the procedures in place at the time of the 2000 election. The largest media organizations investigated the Florida results and concluded that Bush won narrowly: The Florida Ballot Project
Not surprisingly, the results of this massive undertaking were not widely reported (despite being done by the large media outlets
).
The conclusion?
The Supreme Court did not change the results of the election. If they had not stopped the recount in the manner they did, that recount would still have gone to Bush. Had the recount followed a different path (and a different set of recount rules), Gore might have won. We can all agree it was very, very close.
What would the UN have done in such a situation? Ruled that the US Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? Do we really want to get into that debate: who has a higher authority over US law: the US Supreme Court or an international body? I doubt it.
This is a bad idea, not because of the election results, but because it is an erosion of our national sovereignty.
The real sign that a democracy has gone wrong is when the procedures set in place to resolve election disputes is not followed. When the President of a country dissolves the Congress, or modifies election rules unfairly, or prevents voters from casting unfavorable votes (such as armed guards at the polls).
The US followed the procedures in place at the time of the 2000 election. The largest media organizations investigated the Florida results and concluded that Bush won narrowly: The Florida Ballot Project
QUOTE
This project was conceived and sponsored by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Tribune Publishing (which includes the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and a number of other newspapers), CNN, the Associated Press, the St. Petersburg Times and the Palm Beach Post. The news organizations were responsible for securing county cooperation, and paying all associated county fees and ensuring proper presentation of the uncertified ballots. The news organizations will conduct individual analyses of the data and prepare reports for publication and broadcast.
Not surprisingly, the results of this massive undertaking were not widely reported (despite being done by the large media outlets
).The conclusion?
QUOTE
The news organizations reported their findings on Nov. 12, 2001. Their analyses showed that if the recounts underway, but stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court, had been completed, Bush would still have won by a narrow margin, but if disputed ballots statewide had been recounted Gore would have eked out a slim majority.
The Supreme Court did not change the results of the election. If they had not stopped the recount in the manner they did, that recount would still have gone to Bush. Had the recount followed a different path (and a different set of recount rules), Gore might have won. We can all agree it was very, very close.
What would the UN have done in such a situation? Ruled that the US Supreme Court ruled incorrectly? Do we really want to get into that debate: who has a higher authority over US law: the US Supreme Court or an international body? I doubt it.
This is a bad idea, not because of the election results, but because it is an erosion of our national sovereignty.
This has got to be a joke. America can find its own 'delegates' to oversee. If they decide to have the UN which Bush hates by the way oversee the elections, i would freak! Most repubs hates and i mean hates the UN we DO NOT NEED INTERNATION HELP WITH DOMESTIC AFFAIRS
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 2 2004, 07:35 PM)
The Supreme Court did not change the results of the election. If they had not stopped the recount in the manner they did, that recount would still have gone to Bush.
so why did the bush camp push so hard to get the recount stopped?
QUOTE
Going into oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, attorneys for Gov. George W. Bush have argued that the manual recount ordered Friday by the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutional because there was no uniform statewide standard for judging ballots. As spelled out in its brief to the court, Bush's legal team stressed, "The new set of manual recount procedures concocted by the Florida Supreme Court is arbitrary, standardless, and subjective, and will necessarily vary in application in violation of Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Yet Bush's slim lead of less than 200 votes -- down from 537 before Friday's ruling -- stands precisely because a handful of sympathetic county canvassing boards in late November used an arbitrary, standardless procedure to quietly boost Bush's total by reinstating some invalid overseas military ballots. Not only did the boards clearly change the rules in the middle of the game -- something else the Republicans have repeatedly accused the Florida Supreme Court of doing -- but they created a hodgepodge of new standards, some of dubious legitimacy. These included accepting ballots postmarked after Nov. 7 as well as ballots faxed to county election offices. Both instances violate Florida election law.
(Bending the rules boosted Bush totals )Yet Bush's slim lead of less than 200 votes -- down from 537 before Friday's ruling -- stands precisely because a handful of sympathetic county canvassing boards in late November used an arbitrary, standardless procedure to quietly boost Bush's total by reinstating some invalid overseas military ballots. Not only did the boards clearly change the rules in the middle of the game -- something else the Republicans have repeatedly accused the Florida Supreme Court of doing -- but they created a hodgepodge of new standards, some of dubious legitimacy. These included accepting ballots postmarked after Nov. 7 as well as ballots faxed to county election offices. Both instances violate Florida election law.
perhaps the bush camp KNEW the recount would uncover these dubious and illegal tactics to give bush the lead. I also see the fact that katherine harris was in charge of florida's elections when she was also the head of bush's campaign as dubious. can you say "conflict of interest"?
I think that observers of some kind are required in order to ensure that neither candidate doesn't bend or break the rules in order to give themselves the lead as clearly happened in 2000. they should also make sure that there are as few conflicts of interest (such as harris being on bush's campaign team and in charge of a states elections) as possible.
I would say the fact that the Republican party bussed in right wing thugs to threaten and harass the people recounting the ballot would seem to indicate that they didn't believe they won the election. I would also point out that by any reasonable and fair standard Gore in fact did win Florida.
I'm a bit disturbed by this development:
I feel that I should note that in the 2000 presidential election I voted for neither Bush nor Gore, and my objection to the way the election was decided is entirely due to the unfairness to the voting public.
I'm a bit disturbed by this development:
QUOTE
The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.
Given the lengths that the Bush campaign went to to steal the last presidential election away from the voters.I feel that I should note that in the 2000 presidential election I voted for neither Bush nor Gore, and my objection to the way the election was decided is entirely due to the unfairness to the voting public.
This debate isn't about Florida 2000, it is about UN monitors to oversee the election.
Elections are overseen in a bi-partisan manner. The local election officials in Florida were predominantly Democrats. Katherine Harris' only role was making sure that Florida election law was followed. She didn't count any votes.
The US Supreme Court ruled that existing Florida election law must be followed. They didn't decide the election.
The rules were followed. I simply can't see how some UN representatives from Iran or China or even Great Britain would make a difference, except maybe telling the US it should change the rules mid-stream.
QUOTE
1.)In light of the problems that we had in the 2000 election, do we need U.N. observation of the process?
2.)Why would we worry about U.N. observation in the firt place? Wouldn't it be a way to show them how it's done?
3.)If the U.N. said the election process was broken or unfair, how would you view that conclusion after the 2004 election?
4.)Would Instant Runoff Voting solve our problems?
2.)Why would we worry about U.N. observation in the firt place? Wouldn't it be a way to show them how it's done?
3.)If the U.N. said the election process was broken or unfair, how would you view that conclusion after the 2004 election?
4.)Would Instant Runoff Voting solve our problems?
Elections are overseen in a bi-partisan manner. The local election officials in Florida were predominantly Democrats. Katherine Harris' only role was making sure that Florida election law was followed. She didn't count any votes.
The US Supreme Court ruled that existing Florida election law must be followed. They didn't decide the election.
The rules were followed. I simply can't see how some UN representatives from Iran or China or even Great Britain would make a difference, except maybe telling the US it should change the rules mid-stream.
Voting irregularities are reasons why Jimmy Carter and his group are sent to other nations. Consider the problems that we had in 2000.
Scary Facts About Florida Vote
I could post more here about some serious questions pertaining to the election. Now I'm not trying to say that this stuff only happened to democrats. As stated above in the original posting, many Republicans didn't vote because they were falsely led to believe that the election was over when the networks called Florida for Gore prematurely. No matter how accurate the Supreme Court ruling was or who deservedly won, is it not clear that our election process four years ago was a troubled one? What more needs to happen?
QUOTE
*Ballots ran out in certain precincts.
*Carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police. In some cases, officers demanded to see a "taxi license."
*Polls closed with people still in line in Tampa.
*In Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne. Also, Hispanic voters were required to produce two forms of id when only one is required.
*Dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address.
*Voters were mistakenly removed from voter rolls because their names were similar to those of ex-cons.
*According to Reuters news service, many voters received pencils rather than pens when they voted, in violation of state law.
*The Miami Herald reported that many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time.
*Carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police. In some cases, officers demanded to see a "taxi license."
*Polls closed with people still in line in Tampa.
*In Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne. Also, Hispanic voters were required to produce two forms of id when only one is required.
*Dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address.
*Voters were mistakenly removed from voter rolls because their names were similar to those of ex-cons.
*According to Reuters news service, many voters received pencils rather than pens when they voted, in violation of state law.
*The Miami Herald reported that many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time.
Scary Facts About Florida Vote
I could post more here about some serious questions pertaining to the election. Now I'm not trying to say that this stuff only happened to democrats. As stated above in the original posting, many Republicans didn't vote because they were falsely led to believe that the election was over when the networks called Florida for Gore prematurely. No matter how accurate the Supreme Court ruling was or who deservedly won, is it not clear that our election process four years ago was a troubled one? What more needs to happen?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.