I was watching the evening news a couple hours ago, and they mentionned the presence of international observers during the US elections. They even interviewed one of them, a Greek man from the OECD (who basically said that he couldn’t say anything before or during the elections).
I never heard of this before, and I’m wondering : why are they there exactly? What are they supposed to do? And who invited them (generally, AFAIK, OECD election surveyors come at the request or at least with the agreement of the local authorities)?
Finally, given that american people seem to react badly simply at the mention of foreign people trying to influence the US elections (like in the Guardian example), how can they accept the presence of international observers in polling stations? What if these observers had issues with the electoral process?
An interesting article on the subject. The observer’s situation looks pretty bleak, since elections are completely controlled by the states. The federal government has no real power to allow observers. But apparently they kinda did:
I think we all know why they’re there. 
Monitor the elections and write a report documenting any voting irregularities. Same as what went on in Venezuela and Afghanistan.
The US government.
I think you’re severely overestimating the awareness of most of the Americans that would object to them.
Like fraud or something? I think they just write a report. It’s not like they can fine anyone or anything.
Actually since we joined OSCE with a treaty that was ratifyed by the Senate then the federal gov’t does have the power. The constitution says treaties are the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court ruled inMissouri v. Holland that the federal gov’t can use treaties to legislate in areas where it doesn’t otherwise have the power to do so.
I heard an interview recently on the Voice of Russia world service with some international election observers. They talked about the US election and said that since the US participates in the election observation group (OECD? I’m not sure what they said.) their elections are also observed. He said that one major American organizations that observe foreign elections will also observe the US election. The Carter Center, another major one, will not be participating because of its partisan ties.
I think it’s mostly a formality, something to show that observing elections is reciprocal. It’s not like Greece or France will issue a large-scale formal protest. Besides, even late 19th-century New York and Chicago would seem like flourishing gardens of democracy next to some of the places the observers might have been. You might’ve expected a nice picnic or a get out of jail free card if you supported Tammany Hall, but you wouldn’t fear for your life if you didn’t.
That wouldn’t mean the US election must be considered beyond reproach. If the observers do find problems, they will voice their concerns. One of the reasons international organizations criticize developed, liberal-democratic countries as well as tyrannical ones is that they know there’s some hope for change.
I’m not going to blame them since I noticed, reading ** SmackFu ** ’ link that they monitored french elections in the past. I had no idea.
I was rather wondering about the reaction of the american public to statements made by foreign people monitoring the elections.
Incidentally, Jimmy Carter has said that his international election monitoring organization would not take on a nation like the US because of its many irregularities from state to state, its lack of an impartial national election board, and several other problems. Hard to hear that this great country is so far behind so many others in such a fundamental arena. Here’s hoping it gets straightened out soon. xo C.
What’s to straighten out? Why does everyone forget we’re a friggin’ federal republic? On the other hand, I’m scared that the federal government can screw us even further toward their central authority game:
I hate to admit it, but this is a big loophole that our founding fathers overlooked. The senate could negotiate a treaty with, say, Sealand, indicating that both parties are agreed that the maximum speed limit can be 100 kph. There’s a good excuse to go taking away states’ rights again.
Maybe, but:
-
I’m not so sure that SCOTUS wouldn’t laugh in the federal govt’s face at that one.
-
The federal government doesn’t need this kind of silly legislative gymnastics. They could just, oh, I don’t know, tie large amounts of funding to States making their maximum speed limit 55mph. I know, I know, it sounds farfetched…
-
Two words: Interstate commerce.
It’s the OSCE, not the OECD. The OECD is an economic grouping. I worked for the OSCE in the past (as an election monitor abroad); one applies for many of the positions via the State Dept.
OSCE member nations routinely allow the organization to monitor elections within their borders in order to show other nations that we poke our noses into that we’re open to the process.
We have many election irregularities I would’ve had to report if I were working with the same rules we had for Bosnia; we knock voters off the roles and candidates off the ballot routinely, and our financing is little more than thinly-veiled bribery. If the OSCE were doing a proper, by-the-book job here (they’re not, not close) they would’ve had a major presence here for the past two years or so. This is a token ‘monitoring,’ too little and too late to come to many conclusions as they would have in other nations.
Do as we say, not as we do! 
Many people in the countries where Americans routinely conduct election observation resent us going there as if we would the world’s authority in conducting elections. In fact, our voting methods are primitive compared to many other countries, even “third world” countries. It only makes sense that there is some reciprocity, and we could benefit from their expertise.
To answer the OP, one of the groups bringing observers is a non-governmental organization called Global Exchange.
Yeah, I knew that using the first example on the top of my head was bad news.
Okay, our treaty with Sealand says that we have to have a national ID card. No interstate commerce, no Federal funding issues (I don’t mean universal State ID’s).
Balthisar, if the Congress has the Constitutional power to legislate in a certain area, why do you have a problem with Congress legislating through a treaty? You seem to think that treaties can be imposed upon us by other countries.
No, you missed the point. Congress does not have the Constitutional power to legislate in certain areas. The danger is that by making treaties with a foreign country, they could gain that power.