Reply
Sun 17 Oct, 2004 01:09 pm
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_12592.shtml
Quote:All those in favour, raise your hand
By Paul Harris
Oct 13, 2004, 08:17
What an incredible scene we are all going to witness in a few weeks: history in the making. Not the re-election of the most dangerous U.S. president ever to ?'grace' the White House, not the ignominious defeat of a thoroughly unappetizing Democrat contender, not the continued drop into the sinkhole of the ever more certain defeat in Iraq.
The once model for worldwide democracy is about to have its national elections come under the scrutiny of outside observers. Even observers from the Third World, who would long have been considered the least likely to hold free-choice elections themselves. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
A team of experts from 15 countries has descended on the United States to observe the upcoming presidential election. These 20 experts, from five continents, did not come to learn how elections ought to be managed. They came to monitor, to audit, to comment on irregularities. It's not that what they find is likely to derail the election or cause any change in the count; after all, no one is going to tell America what to do. But their comments, if they do find problems, will go a long way toward damaging America's already tarnished image. There are still those who believe the U.S. is the ?'gold standard' for democracy, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and findings that free elections in the U.S. are, well, not so free, could greatly harm American prestige.
The observers come from such wide-ranging nations as Argentina, Zambia, England, Australia, Chile, Nicaragua, Canada, Ghana, Mexico, India, Ireland, Philippines, Wales, Thailand, South Africa. It must be noted that several of those countries have themselves been in the position of having American overseers ensure the fairness of their elections and it must seem ironic to have the shoe on the other foot. Let us not forget the monitored 1984 elections in Nicaragua which were considered to be the most fair elections ever held in that country ?- fair they might have been, satisfactory they were not and American promptly broke its own laws to fund the overthrow of the elected government.
The observer group has been brought to the U.S. by San Francisco-based Global Exchange, which describes itself as "an international human rights organization dedicated to promoting environmental, political and social justice." The observers are being sent to five target states: Ohio, Arizona, Missouri, Georgia and, of course, Florida. They have chosen Georgia because it is one of only two states where voting will be conducted entirely by touch-screen voting machines. Arizona has publicly financed elections which makes it different from other states and Ohio is considered to be a hotly contested state. Missouri attracted the observers' attention because of widespread reports of black vote suppression during the 2000 election. The interest in Florida should be self-evident.
This is not the only international team to observe the elections because the U.S. State Department has actually invited observers itself. The United States invited a delegation from a 55-nation body known as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). That organization encourages, but does not require, its members to observe each others' elections and the State Department formally invited them to send an observer delegation. The delegation will not have the authority to assess the fairness of the vote ?- it is limited to reporting on any observed problems without commenting on fairness.
Global Exchange's observers, on the other hand, are expected to identify problems and assess the election on the basis of its transparency, responsiveness and fairness.
Elected American officials are not enamoured with this whole process. There is nothing they can do to prevent Global Exchange's group from reporting what the have observed but they have tried to take action against the OSCE. Republican members of the House of Representatives have attached an amendment to the 2005 foreign-aid bill to ban any of that money from being used to finance outside monitoring of U.S. elections.
On the floor of the House, Rep. Stephen Buyer stated: "For over 200 years, this nation has conducted elections fairly and impartially, ensuring that each person's vote will count. Imagine going to your polling place on the morning of November 2 and seeing blue-helmeted foreigners inside your local library, school or fire station." More irony.
Some members of the Global Exchange team have stressed that the U.S. government should not feel threatened or offended by their presence. They note there is always room to improve and to share experiences and they say that it is only fair to let others judge you when you presume to judge others.
However, Rep. Buyer probably more closely grasps the feeling of many Americans. The United States sees itself as the judge, never the judged; as the best, never to be questioned; as the people who run the world, not people who need to answer to the world. If Global Exchange discovers significant irregularities and unfairness in the electoral process, the spin-masters will go into overdrive to bury the story faster than most politicians can redefine the truth.
© Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com
I am curious what the Republicans are worried about?
If the election system is so great in the US then why not allow outsiders to view it and see how it should be done all over the world.
If it isn't great then what is wrong with an outside opinion. Isn't that what private industry does? Brings in outside experts to tell you how to do something better.
About the only reason I can think of to not want outside observers is if you plan to cheat and don't want to get caught. Anyone else have other ideas of reasons to not let observers view our elections?
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was invited to monitor the election by the State Department.
That's interesting.
Is that because of the shambles last time?
All Americans should be willing to be scrutinized in any election.
At first hearing, I was miffed at outsiders coming in to moniter--but before that day was over, I reasoned we do it all the time, our last election was a disaster, we have nothing to hide and so, I was for it.
NOW that we hear how anti-Bush the rest of the world is--and how they are keen to have a voice in our elections, I think we need someone monitering them--as they moniter us.
Lash wrote:At first hearing, I was miffed at outsiders coming in to moniter--but before that day was over, I reasoned we do it all the time, our last election was a disaster, we have nothing to hide and so, I was for it.
NOW that we hear how anti-Bush the rest of the world is--and how they are keen to have a voice in our elections, I think we need someone monitering them--as they moniter us.
Obviously, Sofia, you didn't follow the news and aren't update in internatiuonal news:
the USA is a member of the OSCE, takes part with them (actually in a leading position) in other member states .... and his invited them.
Voters to see few big changes after Fla.
By Associated Press
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Voters clamored for reform after the fiasco in Florida four years ago. But when they return to vote again for president on Nov. 2, many may be surprised to discover how little has changed.
Instead of brand-new equipment, computerized voter-registration lists and other improvements, most voters will find the same machines they used last time, few changes for poll workers, and little sign of the overhaul Americans were promised after the 2000 election.
"Everybody was saying, `Oh, we'll have everything new in 2004,'" said Kimball Brace, president of Election Data Services Inc., a consulting firm. "We're in a situation of catch-up now, not being able to implement everything that people thought was going to take place."
Money shortages and delays have stymied the goals of the Help America Vote Act that Congress passed in 2002. The act was never fully funded, the new federal agency it created was appointed nine months late, and most states asked for two-year waivers of key requirements, pushing off the creation of voter-registration databases and the replacement of punchcard and lever machines to 2006.
Come November, three-quarters of the voters will use the same machines as they did in 2000. Nearly 30 percent will vote on the punch card and lever machines now widely regarded as unreliable.
A growing number of critics contend that with only weeks to go before another election that promises to be extremely close, there is a high risk of the kind of vote-counting delays and disputes that tied the country in knots four years ago, when the presidential race was decided by 537 votes in Florida.
The Help America Vote Act "is a broken promise," said California Voter Foundation President Kim Alexander.
"It was hugely disappointing," said R. Doug Lewis, executive director of the Election Center, a Houston nonprofit organization that works with election officials. "Had the appointment process been quicker, had the funding process been quicker, we certainly could have gotten to the infrastructure changes far sooner and we probably could have had some major impacts on 2004."
Some lawmakers and election officials are more optimistic, noting that the major reforms were never designed to kick in before 2006. They also point to some important changes in November - most notably, the availability of provisional ballots nationwide for the first time. These ballots will allow people to vote even when there are questions about their registration - a problem that disenfranchised 1.5 million or more voters in 2000, according to estimates from civil rights groups.
"HAVA never expected election reform to happen in six months, or a year, or even by the November 2004 election," said DeForest B. Soaries, the Republican chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission. "Anyone who supported HAVA, anyone who voted for HAVA, anyone who read HAVA understood that this was going to be a process and not an event."
But Soaries is quick to acknowledge frustrations, including troubles with his own agency, which was given just $1.2 million in 2004 instead of the $10 million authorized by law. Election officials say Congress got sidetracked by other issues, such as the war in Iraq, which also tightened up budgets.
Also, unforeseen questions about the reliability of electronic voting machines have forced county and state officials to rethink purchases of touch-screen machines once viewed as the solution to their problems.
The commission has already funneled some $1.9 billion to states, and an additional $1 billion remains to be distributed. But the commission will not be ready to issue guidelines for what kinds of machines to buy until next April or later.
State election officials have had to make huge financial commitments without guidance as they prepare for Nov. 2 and then for 2006, when voting machines must meet a series of new technical requirements. By then, voters must be alerted when they mistakenly select more than one candidate, they must be able to check and change votes before casting ballots, and each polling place must have a machine that disabled voters can use without help.
The touch-screen machines that most easily meets these new requirements have increasingly fallen out of favor. Up to 50 million people will use the machines in November, but Election Day failures and warnings from computer scientists that electronic vote counts can be manipulated have created so much public doubt that many registrars are wary of buying touch-screens.
Some states are not waiting for federal guidance. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week signed a bill that by 2006 will ban the use of electronic voting machines that do not produce paper records of every ballot cast. Legislators in nearly two dozen states have introduced similar bills.
Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale is among those who need to buy new equipment soon, with or without federal guidelines.
"If we wait until midyear 2005 before we know what the technical standards might be for the EAC, it will be too late for us," Gale said. For now, Nebraska officials will "just make the best judgment possible in a very confusing environment."
Walter Hinteler wrote:Lash wrote:At first hearing, I was miffed at outsiders coming in to moniter--but before that day was over, I reasoned we do it all the time, our last election was a disaster, we have nothing to hide and so, I was for it.
NOW that we hear how anti-Bush the rest of the world is--and how they are keen to have a voice in our elections, I think we need someone monitering them--as they moniter us.
Obviously, Sofia, you didn't follow the news and aren't update in internatiuonal news:
the USA is a member of the OSCE, takes part with them (actually in a leading position) in other member states .... and his invited them.
If it is so obvious that I didn't know, Walter, why don't you tell me what part of my post reveals I didn't know why they were coming? You really should ease up on the assumptions.
Ok - here is prolly a naive question.
How come the USA is still going with the chads and such?
I can't remember when an advanced western democracy had such a shambolic election - and, while I know you have a lot of folk, you must also be able to have a lot of electoral officials - so - why not just write stuff down? Like we do. It seems to go off pretty calmly. There is the odd contested result - but it gets sorted pretty fast, and everyone trusts the electoral office.
Until the technology gets sorted anyway - heaven knows, you don't want a repeat of last time.
Quote:Where do THEY get off judging US!?
No kidding! That's not right! <= me judging them in a poignant satire of unappreciated irony about human nature, and a fluffy white cat
Craven de Kere wrote:Quote:Where do THEY get off judging US!?
No kidding! That's not right! <= me judging them in a poignant satire of unappreciated irony about human nature, and a fluffy white cat
Glad you got it, CdK. I, for one, am relieved that it can't be wondered later if the brother didn't do something to make the final outcome favorable to wannabe emperors. I'm a litte bit embarrassed, like we're asking them to check if we wiped ourselves correctly, but it's better than walking around with a gravy stain for
four more years! Better to be clean than tainted. :wink: Pridefullness is greatly overrated.
Hee hee - those of us who set ourselves up as judges never like to be judged.
I was very amused by your post, Princess - but also uncomfortably aware of how my current government, (coming from a country which has always, like the US, been very happy to take the moral high ground re others' human rights records and such), suddenly became very miffed and anti-UN in rhetoric when they dared to comment unfavourable aout US, and our treatment of Aboriginal people - so I laughed quietly to myself - and didn't feel as I had the right to be a stowing too many thrones in my very own grass house!
I am glad to have them so we do not have to listen to ANOTHER four years of complaining from the dems.
Well, to be fair - a voting process seen by all to be absolutely accurate and transparent is the cornerstone to ant democracy.
I think, had the court decided for Gore, similar dissatisfacion would have been expressed by Republicans.
But - let us all hope EVERYONE is happy with the process - if not the results - this time.
Edit - and to any HUMAN democracy, too -
thought that one was too funny, given the recent ant suicide thread, to delete.
Why does the USSC cet the blame for making Flordia follow there own state laws? I can't help it that Gore wasn't able to change the rules in the middle of a game.
I'm not following you... 
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace