Do We Need Foreign Observers for the Elections?

dlowan wrote:

If the electronic stuff is as unreliable as it seems to be, why on earth is it persisted with?

Because it's not. And because seeming is in the eye of the seemer.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

They were invited by the State Department.

Which one of the 55 OSCE member countries do you think would need use these resources best?

It's all on the OSCE website, btw:

Quote:

The OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission will be of a targeted nature and will follow the election process primarily at the federal level, with regard to the presidential election and the implementation of the Help America Vote Act.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Why conclude I've assumed our wealth grants us a "good process"?

Because of your own statement. Your statement used the metric of wealth as an indicator of not needing help and your comparisons to third world countries and distain for the notion of smaller countries assisting was an implicit implication that the relative status is all that is needed to argue for good processes.

Quote:

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.

I do not have any third world countries with a population equal to or less than New York in mind.

Quote:

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.

The major flaws in our electoral processes are not due to any such logistical requirement you are guessing at.

Quote:

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.

Observers have always had pretty much the same benefit, whether here or in other countries where we help observe elections.

It pretty much boils down to having a third party. Ultimately, their main benefit is to simply observe and they serve as an objective recording of an event that isn't easily repeated (for logistic and legal reasons).

Quote:

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.

This I agree with.

0 Replies

hi walter

I joined dyslexia and dianne in Albuquerque for the election. At some point earlier, a campaign worker had knocked at their door, claimed he was registering voters, but only democrat voters, and said he'd save dys the work of dropping off his registration. That registration form was never handed in and dyslexia had to cast a provisional ballot.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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.

They were invited by the State Department.

Which one of the 55 OSCE member countries do you think would need use these resources best?

It's all on the OSCE website, btw:

Quote:
The OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission will be of a targeted nature and will follow the election process primarily at the federal level, with regard to the presidential election and the implementation of the Help America Vote Act.

Not sure who's a member of the OSCE (no I didn't follow your helpful link) but pretty much any other member comes to mind.

If they were invited by the State Department, why didn't they stick around?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

dlowan wrote:
If the electronic stuff is as unreliable as it seems to be, why on earth is it persisted with?

Because it's not. And because seeming is in the eye of the seemer.

So you're saying that the complaints we read about here are very out of proportion, and selective reporting?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

So you're saying that the complaints we read about here are very out of proportion, and selective reporting?

No, I'm saying that electronic voting is not inherently any less secure than non-electronic voting.

0 Replies

Interesting article on this subject:

Who Will Observe the Observers?[/i]

Quote:

Raleigh, NC
DESPITE HOW EFFORTLESS Jimmy Carter makes it look, there's nothing easy about monitoring elections. Take the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a body comprising 55 member nations (including the United States), whose monitors have suffered all manner of indignities. In Croatia, their chopper was shot down, and in Macedonia, their car set alight. In Kosovo, OSCE staff were attacked, while in Moldova, they were hit with kefir, a yogurt-like dairy product.

But sometimes, words can hurt more than flying yogurt. So the unfriendly reaction must've stung the OSCE, when they announced earlier this year that at the invitation of the State Department, 60 of their non-American members would fan out across the United States to monitor our presidential election in light of last cycle's Florida fiasco. The announcement was greeted with scorn, to put it mildly. Many Americans regarded this as a transparent effort by the OSCE to jab us in the eye, treating America like some third-rate banana republic. After all, it is we who usually bring democratic enlightenment to the likes of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and other far-flung corners of the globe, and not the other way around.

But fair is fair. One of our own congressmen, Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings, is president of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly, and that must speak to the unimpeachable integrity of the organization, if you'll pardon the expression (since the former federal judge is one of the few to have been impeached by Congress for perjury and accepting bribes).

A little turnabout would seem to be called for. So in that spirit, I headed off to Capitol Hill shortly before Election Day for the OSCE monitors' orientation. There I made contact with the four-man parliamentary delegation from Kazakhstan, which was headed to North Carolina to monitor our election.

...

0 Replies

BBC report on findings of international observers:

US vote 'mostly free and fair'

The US elections "mostly met" standards for freedom and fairness, international observers have said.
Observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) said the presidential and congressional elections reflected a "long democratic tradition".

They praised the "professionalism and dedication" of state and local officials.

The observers had received widespread allegations of fraud and voter suppression ahead of the elections but they were unable to substantiate the claims.

However, they said the queues at polls were too long.

"Significant delays at the polling station are likely to deter some voters and may restrict the right to vote," the OSCE said in a preliminary report.

It also warned that electoral reforms passed in response to the problems of the 2000 elections needed to be reviewed.

In 2002, the US Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

The act called for modernisation of voting equipment, state-wide voter databases to ensure the accuracy of the electoral rolls, and provisional ballots to allow citizens who believed they were eligible to vote a chance to vote.

"HAVA addressed problems identified during the 2000 elections. However, it was also a political compromise, which left a number of questions to be addressed in its implementation," the OSCE observers reported.

Their greatest concern was with confusion and lack of clear guidelines with respect to provisional ballots.

'Orderly and peaceful'

The OSCE sent 92 observers to monitor the electoral process across the United States.

The observers found no evidence of fraud or voter suppression
However, they were barred by state law from polling places in Washington DC, Florida and Ohio.

New Mexico also has laws limiting access to polling place by non-voters, but the state sent an escort with the OSCE delegation.

"Election day proceeded in an orderly and peaceful manner," the OSCE observers reported.

"[The elections] were conducted in an environment that reflects a long democratic tradition, including institutions governed by rule of law, free and professional media and civil society involved in all aspects of the election process."

The observers recommended that state election laws be harmonised to allow for greater transparency and universal access to both international and domestic non-partisan observers.

Monitors did find problems but not they were not widespread enough to call the result into question.

Before the elections, the observers had received several claims of fraud and voter suppression, especially among minorities.

The OSCE monitors said they were "concerned that the widespread nature of these allegations may undermine confidence in the electoral process."

However, monitors said they were not "provided with first-hand evidence to substantiate them or to demonstrate that such practices were widespread or systematic".

There had been fears widespread challenges over voter eligibility and to protracted litigation after the vote, but observers said these fears were not realised.

Some anger with observers

The US state department invited the OSCE to monitor the elections as part of agreements among the 55 OSCE member states, which include the US.

Some conservative groups had objected to the role of the monitors.

They said that because Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings was president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly that the monitoring would be partisan and biased.

"All states - Florida in particular - are in danger of having their electoral proceedings corrupted by Hastings and OSCE," said Tom DeWeese, president of the conservative American Policy Centre ahead of the elections.

An OSCE spokeswoman said the role of the election monitors was "to observe, not interfere".

It was the first time that OSCE had sent a full delegation to monitor US elections in light of the controversy over the 2000 US election.

The organisation had sent a limited delegation to monitor the 2002 midterm elections in Florida.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/3987655.stm

0 Replies

Some observers were a bit critical:

Quote:

Polish observer Konrad Olszewski told the International Herald Tribune that the e-voting system in Venezuela was better protected against failures and errors than the computers used in Florida.

"To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler," he added. Serbia uses a unified voting system with paper ballots, which Olszewski said he prefers over all other systems.

His Canadian team partner, Ron Gould, also said he thought Venezuela's e-voting system was more fraud-proof than the touch screens used in Florida. "Each electronic vote in Venezuela also produces a ticket that voters then drop into a ballot box," Gould told the IHT. "Unlike fully electronic systems, this gives a backup that can be used to counter claims of massive fraud."

Source: DW-world

0 Replies

The Premilary Findings are online (as PDF-file) now:

http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_en.pdf

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Some observers were a bit critical:

Quote:
Polish observer Konrad Olszewski told the International Herald Tribune that the e-voting system in Venezuela was better protected against failures and errors than the computers used in Florida.

"To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler," he added. Serbia uses a unified voting system with paper ballots, which Olszewski said he prefers over all other systems.

His Canadian team partner, Ron Gould, also said he thought Venezuela's e-voting system was more fraud-proof than the touch screens used in Florida. "Each electronic vote in Venezuela also produces a ticket that voters then drop into a ballot box," Gould told the IHT. "Unlike fully electronic systems, this gives a backup that can be used to counter claims of massive fraud."
Source: DW-world

Love those Canadian observers ! How could we get by without them? I'm sure he enjoyed his moment to stick his finger in our eyes with this.

Clearly we should do a better job emulating those Serbs and Venezuelans.

We should also consider shipping Jimmy Carter off to Canada - they would be happier together.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Some observers were a bit critical:

Quote:
Polish observer Konrad Olszewski told the International Herald Tribune that the e-voting system in Venezuela was better protected against failures and errors than the computers used in Florida.

"To be honest, monitoring elections in Serbia a few months ago was much simpler," he added. Serbia uses a unified voting system with paper ballots, which Olszewski said he prefers over all other systems.

His Canadian team partner, Ron Gould, also said he thought Venezuela's e-voting system was more fraud-proof than the touch screens used in Florida. "Each electronic vote in Venezuela also produces a ticket that voters then drop into a ballot box," Gould told the IHT. "Unlike fully electronic systems, this gives a backup that can be used to counter claims of massive fraud."
Source: DW-world

Love those Canadian observers ! How could we get by without them? I'm sure he enjoyed his moment to stick his finger in our eyes with this.

Clearly we should do a better job emulating those Serbs and Venezuelans.

Or he speaks rationally defensible truth - with no intent to stick his finger anywhere - perhaps the finger in the eye of the beholder is an own goal, so to speak.

By the way - do you know anything of the rigour of the methods of election in the two countries you malign, or do you, as an American, merely assume your system must be superior?

Shocked

:wink:

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

By the way - do you know anything of the rigour of the methods of election in the two countries you malign, or do you, as an American, merely assume your system must be superior?

I know a good deal about Venezuela from repeated travels to that unfortunate country; almost nothing first hand about Serbia. Do you really believe the comparisons selected were - random??

What do you know about either country? Or the United States for that matter?

Cute trick with those rolling eyes. Very expressive.

0 Replies

I had no reason to suspect the comparisons were anything but from the comments by the observers reproduced above. I asked you if you knew anything about the electoral processes in those countries in order to find out, since your unsubstantiated allegations about the motivations of the Canadian observer led me to believe you were simply being reflexively defensive.

0 Replies

'What do you know about either country? Or the United States for that matter?"

I know enough about the US to know that a number of its citizens routinely assume they are the pinnacle of everything, and that the democratic institutions of all other countries must be inferior.

I am not the one who has maligned the voting systems of Venezuela and Serbia. The burden of proof is upon you.

"Cute trick with those rolling eyes. Very expressive. "

I take your point about the stupid eye-rolling smirklies - and hereby withdraw them. I only ever use them when excessively irritated - and always regret them.

I'll change them to something else, eh?

0 Replies

Well, I know someone, who had been an election observer for several times.

And I'm in the "electoral committee" (that's most certainly the wrong word = I sit in a polling station, observe that everything is done correctly [with 4 others] and finally count the votes there [with the five persons from the "other shift" in addition, in public]).

I never could imagine that similar would happen here - or the elction (part of, at least) would be annulated.

However, this might mostly be due to the US-system/differences here.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

I know enough about the US to know that a number of its citizens routinely assume they are the pinnacle of everything, and that the democratic institutions of all other countries must be inferior.

I too have experienced a similar backlash by being Canadian, simply offering nothing more than opinions and educated guesses to my neighbours.
I am often rebutted on other sites based solely on my nationality, which unfortunately to many Americans, is justification enough to dismiss any relevant knowledge I may possess or offer to the dialogue.

This speaks of course to some but not all Americans, as this site tends to have a greater deal of intellect flowing through it than the "other" sites I frequent. But the emotions you refer to are nevertheless common....

0 Replies

I think these liberal foreign organizations are too scared to mess with big fat, gun totin American Conservatives.

0 Replies

ConstitutionalGirl wrote:

I think these liberal foreign organizations are too scared to mess with big fat, gun totin American Conservatives.

Perhaps you look e.g. here: http://www.osce.org/

0 Replies

Do We Need Foreign Observers for the Elections?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know