Craven de Kere wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
Because we are the worlds most stable, best functioning democracy, and we don't need their help. We aren't a third-world country, or trying to do this for the first time without a clue.
Some third world countries have far better functioning election processes than do we.
It's not good to assume that our wealth automatically grants us good processes, and such attitudes are an impediment to amelioration of said processes.
Why conclude I've assumed our wealth grants us a "good process"? But whether we have a good process or not, my point bears repeating:
We don't need their help.
I'm not sure to which third world countries you are referring, but I suppose if you have a population equal to that of New York City (or less), and you only have a few issues on the ballot, you could have a fairly simple election process, and it might function quite well. However, I suspect there is no country in the world that has on its election day anywhere near the logistical problems we face in the US, brought upon by the confluence of the population of the US, the fact we have 50+ "states" voting, each of which having their own unique races and issues, and innumerable counties, again each with its own myriad of local elections and issues.
On one hand, I suppose I don't understand what benefit is hoped to be gained by allowing foreign observers in to watch our elections. Are they watching only the single vote for our President, or are they also observing the votes for the County Register of Deeds? If they spot an irregularity, to what entity would they report, and for what purpose? Aren't elections regulated by the individual States? Will the Federal Government require States to allow these observers in?
But on the other hand, I don't really care. If the observers want to come and observe, why not? Maybe they can tell us something we didn't already know. Seems like the resources could best be used elsewhere, though.