http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130090,00.html

Absolutely incredibly demeaning, if I had any doubt about Kerry and his parties ability to rule it's washed away now. Hell I had my doubts about Bush, and was really trying to listen to Kerry's message ( took effort I tell you, his message is more garbled than a pickup line at closing time).

But now the Democratic party has asked for international monitoring by an OUTSIDE FUCKING SOURCE ( read European, Kerry's secret allies)?

You really have to be kidding me, there is absolutely no other country on the world that stands above us, that is cleaner than our current system , and is any closer to being perfect.

By that I mean , why do the Democrats continue to want to put down the American culture, the American populace and jesus christ why show the weakness??

I implore all you riding the fence as I was, look now at the Party ( Democrats if you failed to follow the bouncing ball) that would subjugate us to outside sources....

And say...Fuck them in 04...

Fandros

I don't see what the problem is, other than a very arrogant mindset. Impartial monitoring is a very good thing in important processes, you don't think?

Responding to a request from 13 Democratic congressmen and the State Department, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Organization%20for%20Security%20and%20Cooperat ion%20in%20Europe)) will be sending a group to make sure the United States holds a fair election in November. The State Department then sent a request for election monitors to the OSCE. On July 30, the State Department confirmed that OSCE observers would monitor the Nov. 2 election. Last I heard, Fanny, the Dems didn't run the State Dept. =)

They made a request, and the administration accepted that request.

Actually Grumblin my lil anon critic.

Allowing anyone to judge your election system speak volumes. A soveriegn nation should never allow outside interests to tell them what's right and whats wrong.

Pay attention to your studies Grumblin....

Fandros

pssst, that last Rep message was from me, forgot to sign in Dear Grumblin...

It's procedure to have to accept the request Thor. ;(

It's beyond belief that the Democrats want anyone to tell us how to be a Democracy...

Fandros

If United States administrations are going to insist that international monitors observe elections in budding democracies around the world does it make more sense to

1. Insist we are above reproach and refuse to participate in the same program. (Do as I say, not as I do)

or

2. Participate in monitoring programs and provide an example, through action, that elections can be fair and peaceful. (Do as I do, not just as I say)

Besides, its not like this will be the first election in America that had international observers.

It's the first Presidential in my lifetime to be monitored.

Regardless, and yes it's a bit arrogant perhaps, we are the Superpower on the block and not a country ruled by puppet masters...

I think the Democrats were expecting the Republican leaning State Department to refute them. Then the Dems would turn it into a huge stink prior to the Republican convention attempting to bypass the expected large pop in the polls for Bush.

Gods I really hate the muck of Election year politics....

Fandros

It's the first Presidential in my lifetime to be monitored.
After the debacle in the last election all Americans should be for anything they will make the process run smoother than last election. Whether you approved of the final outcome or not, you have to admit the road to it was down right embarassing, no matter who you want to blame for it. We need to prove this time we can run it with out a hitch, and an outside monitor will help us prove we can.

I'm not to sure about the group chosen because they might have a hidden agenda, considering the current world situation. It does bring up the question...can you really find a group to do the monitoring that would be truly fair and impartial? That would be my main objection to the monitoring.

To be fair, the article says that 13 democratic congressmen are the ones who support the notion. That hardly makes it an idea backed by the entire party.

After the debacle in the last election all Americans should be for anything they will make the process run smoother than last election.

Fix/observe Florida then, not the entire US. I'm with Fandros on this one.

Using a European based organization for supposedly un-biased supervision of a US election makes so little sense I thought it was a joke at first.

'You really have to be kidding me, there is absolutely no other country on the world that stands above us, that is cleaner than our current system , and is any closer to being perfect.'

- You're joking, right?

Well for one, Britain's is cleaner. And two - Florida ring any bells?
I've seen cleaner elections in Russia.

The main point of the election right now appears to be WAR RECORDS.

Jesus christ.

Why aren't you pissed at the state dept also? They obviously think it's a good idea. <---Mr Anon Poster 2

Because anon lad/lass, read my above post...

It's election year, and partisian political traps abound. Imagine if the request to the State Department had been turned down, imagine the insuing bullshit as the Kerry camp ramped it up.

Fix the FL mistake, don't fucking pretend we need outside help to keep us on the straight and narrow.

Fandros

Halo tsk tsk...

Your system is clean? Does one vote equate to one vote?

Or instead if you're a royal do you get more votes to the buck. Hell you still have a Royal family..../chuckle

You are not a clean Democratic system, and tho I love the UK with reckless abandon and would love to live there a few years ( plan on it in 6 years if all goes well) it's not better than the US.

Fandros

Grumblin is his character name in EQ - not anon. You just don't play often enough with people outside of EW to notice, perhaps?

if the second anon was to Roliel (I can't be sure, you didn't quote him right if it was) - He's another person who uses his board name as his character name - he was an officer in IvM, guess you don't get out much =\

Edit:
Actually, I didn't see any post with a mention of the State Department besides yours and Thormir's...I'm confused here.

/pats Talid on the noggin...

No bud, the term Critic would refer to reputation posts. I've had two negative hits on my rep in the last lil while, Grumblin was the first and am unsure who the second is atm.

Tho it is true, I rarely group outside of EW anymore. Tho last week I enjoyed the company of a group of LS for LDoN's. My time just doesn't allow me to expand my grouping habits.

Fandros

Florida was fucked up

There is also the history of the elections in Chicago.

Listen, even the mechanic of a Rolls Royce does tests. Yes, our system rocks, but the Florida election, improper or not, the illusion of impropriety still hangs. We have nothing to hide, if people wanna come watch how its done right, whats the big deal? I dont understand the aversion to outside independant observers. We arent asking anyone to run our elections, just a neutral 3rd party to give an independant viewpoint.

Gosh I wonder what they will say.

' Or instead if you're a royal do you get more votes to the buck. Hell you still have a Royal family..../chuckle'

- LOELZ WE HAVE ROYAL FAMILIE LOELZ.

I'll take a constitutional monarch over a democratic process that allowed Bush to be elected, any day.

You appear to be forgetting which country laid the roots for modern democracy - and spread it - throughout the world.

Heh, this argument is going to get nasty. Let's keep it on the election track. U.S. versus England threads are about as much fun as wet underwear.

I'll take a constitutional monarch over a democratic process that allowed Bush to be elected, any day.



Hey... you elected vice president Tony Blair. Thanks for that.


You appear to be forgetting which country laid the roots for modern democracy - and spread it - throughout the world.

Yeah I think we all owe Greece our gratitude.

Given the extensive history of election corruption in the US (insert story about dead people voting), I really don't see why a 3rd party observing it from time to time is that bad of a thing. It's not like they're going to be running it. I would have probably looked someplace a little closer to home than an organization for policing fledging democracies, but I'm not particularly up on what's available. Is it partisan politics? Probably. That doesn't mean auditing our election proceedings is bad.

If you want to get really upset about voting practices, I'd recommend you take a look into the criminally insecure electronic voting systems being used in some precincts.

Actually what could it hurt would be my question?

Ibudin

It probably won't be quite as 'impartial' as they're trying to play it off as. The organization is based in Europe, and Europe really doesn't like Bush.

Exactly my point Roliel, any group based in Kerry biased Europe would be a far cry from impartial.

Want impartial? Go with one of the many agencies Stateside or I'd even be willing for a UK based group.

This is going to get ugly, when Bush wins ( and by my guess he will) you'll have this Kerry Biased agency screaming foul and mucking up the results.

How can this be a good thing I have to ask.

Let's not fool ourselves, this isn't a dream world , this isn't an observing team. They are going to lay down a judgement, and feed the wolves of the world even more meat then we possibly could want in the AntiAmerican feeding frenzy that's already out there.

Fandros

Ahh and I love the jackassery by my latest critic.

pats Fandros on the noggin, you're about as on the fence as Karl Rove.<---/chuckle

I haven't voted Republican on a Presidential ticket since 1984.

In order

1984...Reagen ...wish there were more like him...
1988...Perot....I hated both main party guys...yes Bush Sr was one of them
1992...Clinton...
1996...Clinton...
2000...Gore....thank God I was wrong here...

You don't know me, you shouldn't bother guessing my affiliation bud.

Ahhhh and Halo, what UK spread wasn't a Democracy aye? Wasn't ya'll pretty much a pure Monarchy at the height of the BRITISH EMPIRE? ;)

Fandros

I'm very much an advocate of monitoring our election, and I do believe it's important that we do a better job than we have in the past. That being said, whatever group monitoring the election needs to be as nonpolitical, and nonbiased as possible. Perhaps some sort of system could be implemented where political candidates and their parties are able to veto people off of the monitor group (something like jury selection).

Oh get off your "holier than thou" high horses and wake up and smell the daisys, Fanny.
It's a monitoring process, nothing else, and it's not uncommon whatsoever. Impartial election monitoring processes are prevalent in many parts of the world, and the US has whole-heartedly supported such processes for many a country.

Are you really that arrogant to believe that you're "above it all"? That your system is infallible to corruption, to misinterpretation and cheating? More importantly, do you really think that your country should be exempt from even the notion of such? That's called hubris. And it's the worst kind of arrogance there is.

Is it flattering to have your own elected officials ask for such a thing? Probably not. But neither does it spell the end of the world, nor does it affect the outcome of the elections. Is Kerry more popular in Europe than Bush? Yes. Do we worship the ground he walks on? Fuck no. Lets face it, at the end of the day your presidential candidates are just two flavors of mustard as far as we're concerned. Also, you have to realize that the people that will be elected to perform these observations won't be picked from the frenzied politicals zealots out there, but rather academics that even if they're not impartial (face it, no one is today), has the wits and the education and the know-how to keep themselves impartial. But hell, it's not like they could affect the election without going through so much red tape that they'd get neutered by every oppositional force there is.

It probably won't be quite as 'impartial' as they're trying to play it off as. The organization is based in Europe, and Europe really doesn't like Bush.
That's my worry, Rol.

I'm all for monitoring...but not from a biased body. But again I ask...could really get a truly unbiased monitor.....short of finding some people that have been locked in a cave for the past...say...10 years.

For those that think the problem last time was restricted to Florida, think again. There's similar problems in many states....those states were not under a microscope like Florida. Because the vote was incredibly close and there was a Bush in power in the state made the scrutiny...unreal.

short of finding some people that have been locked in a cave for the past...say...10 years.
What, like Osama and all his top level lackeys in a few years?

Hmm. Can you honestly say that paid american professionals are less biased than paid european professionals? Surely it is the individual americans that have the greater vested interest?

And is partiality that big of an issue? - I don't believe it is, being that they can't explicitly effect change autonomously, and if they do want to effect change, they will need to make the problem known to american superiors before change could occur, and if the change is unreasonable, there will be inevitable public reaction, and the change wouldn't be effected at all.

I also don't believe that they would be openly biased to the point of affecting the election in the first place. Doubtless the press would find out and that would seriously affect their credibility as an organisation, and thus ruining them and keeping the american election "pure and clean and almost perfect" as was suggested earlier.

So what is the problem? If you want, don't look at it as "unneccessary aid" - look at it as a safeguard. Lets face it. Who gets in as the american President will effect the whole world. We don't want the wrong asshole getting in due to a cock-up with the election process.

*edit* as a side note, the first one in the old thread was me, yes, fandros. But i'm not the fanatical retard following you now.

and also, didnt read Kivorn's post before posting this (damn my browser or whatever is causing this forum trouble) so wasnt intentionally repeating shit.

See here's my point folks.

If Kerry wins then it's just a monitoring group, if Bush wins we see what...World court suits?

And yes, we are involved in overseeing the results in other countries. But how many of those countries do we either bleed in or spend tons of cash in knowing those selfsame countries will never repay us.

How many of the member nations stepping up to monitor our election renig on debts to us, or have helped us cashwise in our recent recession?

Answer? none....

So no, I'm not willing to let countries that step on our toes or in our way act as though they're needed in this.

I'm sorry, this might seem like pride and this might seem arogant...

But I simply don't want it...

Presidential election mistakes have been around since long before I was born.

Why now brown cow, and by gods let the first country help us make this right that has never made their own mistakes...

Fandros

I'm sorry, this might seem like pride and this might seem arogant...

But I simply don't want it...


Yes, it does seem like pride and arrogance. I can see objecting to the specific agency doing the monitoring, but again, they're not RUNNING the election, merely observing it. Hopefully to avoid another mess like Florida where people were throwing blame for, well, about four years.

Then again, I can also see why you give rep points for posting style and general forum behavior, not based on whether or not you agree with the the poster.

If they are just here to observe that is fine, however I am apprehensive about the idea that they will stirr up some type of conspiracy theory on how Bush cheated if he wins. We should not rely on the Europeans to make sure our elections are fair, we should rely on ourselves, we do so many other things on our own, im sure we can handle overseeing our own election without an international tribunal up our ass.

And about the electronic voting machines, I am not convinced that they are safe. I have seen many news specials and articles on how someone can hack into the vote count or manually replace the memory card inside with a tampered one. Not to mention there is no physical evidence of a vote, so we cannot go back and double check if we ever need to for one reason or another.

On a side note, Kerry has already put lawyers on standby to fight any election results in court.

Ack Tibbert really? Could you link this?

And Malse, perhaps I'm confused but what do you refer to bud/buddette?

Fandros

As much as i cringe when halo says it, the previous mistakes didnt indirectly help to cause two wars and gather international public scorn. Though i guess hindsight is a wonderful thing, it may have happened regardless. But for arguments sake: - as soon as something like has happened happens whether you like it or not the international focus is going to be on the next election. What better way to prove america is the best, closest to perfect juggernaught of democracy it is which aims to have the penultimate representation of what the people of america want, than to have an outside organisation observe?

As for your theory, i'm with Kivorn, they will hardly choose zealous people that would rather die than see Bush be reelected. This is a professional organisation. Is there no such thing as professional impartiality anymore?

Also, i fear you've now created excuses for outcomes of the monitoring. i.e. If Bush wins and the election was indeed done improperly you can justify this by saying the organisation was biased, and perhaps more passionate people will just feel a closer affinity to bush.

On the other shoe, if Kerry wins and there are no investigations, there will again be questions. So, well perhaps america will undo its effectiveness with their stubbornness anyway. Shrug.

Don't have link, will look though, I heard it on Fox I think =\

Wish I was an expert on Aussie Culture and Politics, really no common ground to argue with ya Grum.

But consider this, and as I know yer no fan of mine try to be "impartial".

But Bush wins again, which is something most Non Americans would deem "bad", what do you expect this panel to do?

Hell for that matter what do you expect this panel to do PERIOD?

Why are they involved, are they supposed to sit by quietly? ahem I think not...

They are brought in by a Democratic party expecting a loss. Now I'm sure Aussie politics are as pure as the British ones as stated by Halo...

But here it's ugly, here we allow Senators , in a minority house mind you, to skip all votes for a year to run for higher office.

Here we allow bills to run, not on their sole basis but also based on the "rider bills" attached due to special interests.

Here we allow criminals to hold office and hold sway...want more on this email me...

It's ugly here Grum, and I hate Election year BS. I hate what it turns us into, I hate the world stage viewing and thinking they know better for us.

I hate the voter passion and the voter apathy all the same. But at the same time I cannot walk quietly into that good night. I know I have to be involved and wish to make a difference....

Gahhhhhhhh

Fandros

I don't dislike you, fandros, i enjoy your occasional insightful informed posts, i just don't like the inferior, knowledgeless manner which you seemingly attribute to all young people. - As a side note i'm from New Zealand, that mistake i'll readily forgive because my old guild leader thought that was in Europe somewhere :(

But you're right, over here (not australia) we dont have black and white right and left wing parties so to speak, we have different elements of middle. I would like to reintroduce though, that would american citizens, and thus voters, be better vessels to see through the integrity of the election than foreigners? Perhaps i put too much trust in professionalism.

- to address the question, i think theyre just there to see that the election is held correctly because it is a very important decision that needs to be made and calculated correctly. I put this to you, though. If the american holders of the election have a personal political affiliation, and their party wins through a slight mistake, would they correct that mistake?

Ahhhh New Zealand, from the few flicks I've seen shot there it's absolutely beautiful.

I'd have to know how the fishing/camping was there before I'd move .../chuckle

I am not opposed to the young bud, what I dislike is being talked down to by folks who either refuse to vote or are too young to vote.

American politics are rough, tough and well emotional...

I started out a Republican, read JFK's father's lifestory and switched, then Clinton's abuses moved me right again.

It's ugly , it's hateful , and yet it's addictive by far...

Fandros

sorry for the over-edit. but yah, the fishing and camping here is excellent. Very serene, for the camping, the only thing that can kill you here is one type of spider in the north, a wild pig, other people, and your own stupidity. Oh, and volcanos and earthquakes (because we are right on a major fault line), paranoid? ;) Fishing here rocks, there are those of us that breathe fishing, there is coast everywhere, and some of the best trout streams in the world in the middle. Sorry for the hijack =O

'Wasn't ya'll pretty much a pure Monarchy at the height of the BRITISH EMPIRE?'

- That's a joke, right?

"the only thing that can kill you here is one type of spider in the north"

Yeah that Shelob is one big nasty bitch!

have seen many news specials and articles on how someone can hack into the vote count or manually replace the memory card inside with a tampered one. Not to mention there is no physical evidence of a vote, so we cannot go back and double check if we ever need to for one reason or another.

Where I live it's been computerized voting for a while.

You get a card with a magnetic strip(think credit card for a visual) that you insert into the machine. Then you vote via touch screen. Then you remove the card and hand it in. They swipe the card. your vote is in the system. They keep the cards as the physical evidence.

Easy, painless..and only the mentally retarded or illiterate would be confused by the ballot.

Tampering is a nonissue. Can't hack and can't replace a memory card since the votes are counted as they are cast and it would be easy to notice(and they'd just need to gather and reslide the voting cards to fix it).

Even here in Alabama all counties have computerized digital voting machines similar to the ones Crist0 mentioned. A flawlessly run election is not hard and we certainly are capable of it here in the states. I certainly hope Florida has cleaned up its act since 2000, and if I'm not mistaken it was only a few counties that were a problem anyway.

Electronic voting *can* be fairly secure and efficient if enough care is taken by the States to choose the right supplier. Most of the bad press has been the result of issues with Diebold, a single supplier using questionable designs that were proven to be easily hacked or tampered with. Other designs have proven far more resistant to tampering due to proprietary OS, lack of connectivity or other strategies.

Frankly, much of the political opposition to electronic voting comes from the political parties themselves since both have evolved ways to "work the existing system", i.e. disputing hanging chads, invalidating some voter cards etc.

IMO electronic voting, if done correctly and with the right equipment, will make the election less corruptible than it currently is.

Here's how the voting works in my precinct:

You stop at a table, tell them your name and they hand you a chisel and stone, then you......nevermind. :)

Well, all I can say is that I hope conditions have been improved in rural Georgia, where I voted in the 2000 election. We had *three* of those huge antiquated, flip levers and then pull the enormous handle booths to handle half of Clarke County, which has over 60,000 residents. The wait time to vote was over two and a half hours, and there was a line around the building at the time the polls closed... Supposedly they were going to let everyone who was in line at 7pm vote (I was there from 1:30-4:00pm waiting my turn), but I have no idea how many people left in disgust or because they had obligations that could not wait any longer, and thus were disenfranchised due to poor preparation. (If you ever wondered why some of those precincts seem to take forever to come in...) Webb County in Texas (where I live now) has done a much better job of providing plenty of precinct voting stations this year (and Texas has historically in general), but as of this summer is still using the booths with a stylus, punch cards, and, yes, butterfly ballots.

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Autonomous Collective

P.S. We (Webb County) also had our own election fraud scandal this spring (involving those fabulous punchcard ballots), if anyone has been following the 28th Congressional District race here. The incumbent in the Democratic primary, Ciro Rodriguez, had narrowly won the election when the challenger, Henry Cuellar, who is a local personal injury lawyer turned judge here in Webb, filed for a recount on the *last* day possible to do so. Recounts in the 20+ counties which make up the district showed no significant change in the vote tallies in any of the counties *except* Webb and Zapata (just south of us), where 277 votes, all for Cuellar, were somehow 'found', making him the winner of the election. Rodriguez's camp, of course, appealed, and the case wound its way through the appeals process for a while, with attorneys for Rodriguez discovering that 240 or so of those 277 'registered voters' were either deceased or had listed addresses that were vacant lots or other abandoned properties.
Curiously enough, the panel of judges that had the power to decide whether this information would be admitted into evidence (5 republican, 2 democratic, judges have political parties and are elected in Texas) voted on party lines not to allow it, and so the recount results were accepted. I wonder why? :) Take it from us in South Texas, the place where everyone is related to somebody, and who brought you LBJ for President, outside monitoring = good...

best trout streams in the world
That would be central Washington. We just keep it secret.

Bring on the Eurotrash, let them count the votes. As long as we get to start monitoring elections in their countries as well.

Well, so everyone knows, we here in Florida had the senate primary elections today, and they went quite smoothly. Trust me, after the shit that happened before, a huge amount of effort has gone into fixing it.

It's not perfect, the governer is a bush after all, but it seems to be working.

And it's not like Florida is the only state to have voting problems for christ's sake. It just got all the attention in 2000.