Europe to monitor U.S. elections.

BrandX, I for one, totally support this idea. Regardless of the outcome, I feel that this is a step in the right direction.

I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction. It almost seems as if they are violating our sovereignty as a nation. To have to world look over our election process as a learning process is one thing to look at it as making sure it is done fairly is an intrusion.

Baldimo, what should you fear? You believe that the American elections will be totally fair. Than what is the problem?

You mean, it's okay for the US to observe elections in more than 150 independent sovereign countries (that's what the ODIHR did in the last couple of years - and the USA are a member of it since the beginning), but not "in your house"?

Why did they sign and ratify the treaties for this organisation? (25 June 1973: Admission to the OSCE; 1 August 1975: Signature of the Helsinki Final Act; 21 November 1990: Signature of the Charter of Paris.)

I don't really care for the idea, but having a neutral party checking things out is a little intriguing, as long as they were just whistle blowers and didn't have any decision making authority.

It's obvious after the 2000 election that we've lost control of our election process. Something needs to be done about it, but I'm not so sure foreign watch dogs is the answer. But I don't have a better idea...

I never said it was ok for the US to observe others elections. I don't have an issue with the US or any other nation watching over countries elections if there have been issues in the past. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan need to be observered they haven't had elections in decades and their process needs to run properly. I don't think the US needs to have this done. We are the oldest Democracy in the world and our process runs the way it should. Just because the Democratic Party thinks the election was stolen doesn't mean that it was.

Although Bush keeps on saying this, Switzerland has a some hundred years older democratic tradition.

And. yes, there's always one party saying, the election was stolen and the winning one neglecting that.
That's one of the reasons for obeservers.

I think it's a fine idea.

Unbiased uncorrupt outcome?


International Report
International Election Monitoring Group Headed By Impeached U.S. Judge;
By Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center

August 26, 2004

Washington, D.C.- The American Policy Center charged on Wednesday that the U.S. State Department has invited scandal, fraud, and corruption to the American electoral process with its decision to bring in foreign election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor the November presidential election.

APC, a grassroots activist organization located in suburban Washington, D.C., is alerting Americans to the dangers of inviting an international body to monitor the upcoming presidential election.

APC has discovered that the president of the OSCE election monitoring arm is none other than Florida Representative and disgraced federal judge, Alcee Hastings. He was elected President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on July 9 of this year. According to its website: "The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's role [in the election monitoring process] is to deploy parliamentarians, primarily as short-term observers, and to provide political leadership to the OSCE monitoring operation." In other words, Alcee Hastings is at the top of the OSCE's election monitoring operation.

In 1988, The U.S. House of Representatives voted almost unanimously (413-3) to approve 17 articles of impeachment amounting to "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Hastings, who at the time was a federal judge. While sitting on the federal bench, an FBI bribery sting caught Hastings conspiring to obtain a $150,000 bribe in exchange for granting leniency to a pair of convicted racketeers. The Senate convicted Hastings of perjury and conspiracy to take a bribe. He is one of only a handful of judges ever to be impeached in the history of the U.S.

"The outrage just got more outrageous," said American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese. "Not only has the State Department invited a team of unaccountable, foreign bureaucrats to meddle in our free elections, but these meddlers are headed by one of the most corrupt individuals in the U.S. Congress."

"While they're at it," said DeWeese, "why doesn't the State Department invite O.J. Simpson to head up the FBI crime lab?"

Hastings is by no means an innocent bystander in the upcoming presidential election.Hastings is a House Democrat who represents Broward County, Florida-ground zero of the Election 2000 re-count fiasco. On June 14 of this year, the disgraced former judge declared to the Associated Press: "Any way we cut it, these people [the Bush Administration] are going to try and steal this election." Now Hastings, as president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, is in position to seriously affect the outcome of the 2004 vote.

"By caving to the demands of 13 leftist Congressmen that international election observers monitor the November 2 presidential election, the Bush Administration is not only shooting U.S. sovereignty, but shooting itself in the foot," said DeWeese. "There is a political agenda at work here. The OSCE is not an unbiased team of observers. If the vote in Florida or many other states is as close as predicted, you can bet that Alcee Hastings and his army of foreign monitors will do everything in their power to affect the outcome to their liking."

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) warned: "We should be wary about organizations like the OSCE that seek to involve themselves in our electoral process. The OSCE in particular has a terrible record in the newly-democratic countries of central Europe, where it normally operates. According to groups that follow the conduct of the OSCE, this organization does much more to undermine free elections than to promote them.

"In Bosnia in 1996, for example," said Rep. Paul, "the OSCE gave its seal of approval to parliamentary elections despite the fact that an impossible 107 percent of the possible voting-age population had voted. In 1998, the OSCE observer team that was to monitor the cease-fire between the Serbs and Albanians was caught sending targeting information back to the US and European Union in advance of the U.S.-led attack on Serbia. This year, the OSCE approved the election of Mikheil Saakashvili in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia with a Saddam Hussein-like 97 percent of the vote! There are dozens more similar examples."

"Clearly the OSCE has shown by its conduct and by its questionable choice of leadership that it is not an organization worthy of U.S. participation," DeWeese charged.

"Not only must the Bush Administration immediately rescind its invitation to the OSCE to monitor this year's election, but the White House must also withdraw our membership from this suspect group. Alcee Hastings is a blatant symbol of political corruption. Why on Earth would the U.S. government continue to support an organization lead by him, let alone pay 10 percent of its operating budget?"

Source

LOL. This is so typical!

The US is a great democracy, but it's not perfect.
It's not "the best" democracy in the world. It's not "the oldest". It's not "the biggest".

But Americans are being told, all the time, that they are the best, the biggest, the greatest. And that it's unpatriotic to think otherwise.

Foreign observers in elections are as common as ballots in all countries of the world. They've been there all the time. Also in the US in former elections. There's no need to wrap yourselves with the flag. The observers have no legal power. Only moral power on the world's public opinion.
If you don't care about that, well don't.

And, honestly, don't you think that the image of the US as a model democracy would be better without butterfly ballots?

Which Democracy is best then?

Which is the Oldest?

Which is the biggest?

I ask because you must have this information at your fingertips to be able to make these statements.

oh wow... i actually have to go with mcg on this one.

I'm not arguing against American democracy, but against American "I'm the best in everything" attitude.

What is "the best" democracy is disputable, per se.
Some people can argue against the electoral college (what's the power of a Republican voter in Hawaii or a Democrat in Idaho?), others can argue against the amount of private money that can be poured into campaigns; others yet can argue in favor of a parliamentary system who does not promote bipartitism. Many others, around the world, feel ill at ease at the different ways ballots are made in different counties and states (almost everywhere else, there's a national sample ballot).
All other democracies are imperfect, too.

The oldest? Should I go back to Greece -and think that slaves did not have the right to vote-, to Switzerland -like Walter explained, but where voting was not secret- or the XIX Century US, where in some states blacks had 2/5ths of a vote?
Democracy is a process, everchanging, evolving.
If one thinks it has achieved perfection, one helps to undermine it.

The biggest? India.

OK. The US democracy has one superlative. It's the richest democracy in the world. No doubt about that.

You see, fellows, the moment I read the title of the thread, I realized some US patriots would be angry, thinking that countries not as mighty -or allies not as trustable- could have a critical eye on American democracy.

The idea of American superiority is good for self confidence, but only if taken with a grain of salt. It's good to understand that you have a great country and to defend it's values.
But the idea of American near-perfection, the idea that you can critisize others but they can't critisize you, the idea that you're always right, has actually harmed the US, both in their international relationships ("they don't understand how great we are and how much we help them! They should love us, or better: adore us.") and in their internal core (some people level critics with traitors, and America's biggest historical strenght has been freedom of speech).

A toatlly agree re your response(s) about 'democracyÄ, fbaezer!

Seems -additionally- that some US lawmakers fon't know that the US is a member of OSCE (since the very beginning, April, 12, 1961) and agreed to this decission.

if you read through the threads on this site, you'll see that you are wrong about what "all americans" think. all of us here find problems with our country, not for the same reasons. not perfect in any way, for any of us.

but america is our home. and it would appear, that many, many people from all over the world want to make it their home.

criticism?? even before the goat roper from crawford got in the white house we heard enough from folks about how crappy our country was.but people still want to come here. and if they can't do it right away? they sneak in.

for all of our lesser than thou qualities, people sure do want to join us. even if it's only for money.

so much for the superior culture argument.

I get the distinct impression that some Americans are very paranoid. Why? What is there to "fear" from election observers?

I think it is an answer to our prayers. Even if it don't change anything at least there will be an outsider to add their two cents in and we won't have to depend on the likes of Chris Matthews basically calling old people stupid because of the mess of the florida election in 2000.

Besides if it is an agreement that we signed to then we got to live with it even if we don't like it. Thank goodness.

Sometimes an outside perspective on an issue (like the trouble in Florida) can be very helpful. Surely an impartial point of view would help to resolve matters quicker and to more peoples' satisfaction. Do those who would rather get rid the observers be happy for US observers to stop watching other countries' elections?