Some congressmen asked UN to supervize our election

[BrainGlutton]

@Antiochus

But the Un said no…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1149923.htm

…because, “The policy and practice is that the United Nations responds to requests made by national governments and not the legislative branch.”

So, I guess such a request would have to come from the president himself.

:eek: Is this really U.N. policy? What’s the point of their sending out vote-monitors at all, if the established government being challenged in the election has to make the request?

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Implicit in your statement, of course, is the idea that the request has any legitimacy in the first place…

And why not? Why exactly would it be any less “legitimate” for the U.N. to monitor elections in the U.S. than for them to monitor elections in any other country? What’s so damned special about us?

[clairobscur]

@BrainGlutton

:eek: Is this really U.N. policy? What’s the point of their sending out vote-monitors at all, if the established government being challenged in the election has to make the request?

What else should they do? Send tanks along with the monitors?
The point can be, for instance avoiding serious disturbances following a contested election. Also, the established governement is often pressured into accepting the monitoring by foreign countries. Finally, there are a lot of elections which are monitored and still not honest.

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

And why not? Why exactly would it be any less “legitimate” for the U.N. to monitor elections in the U.S. than for them to monitor elections in any other country? What’s so damned special about us?

I think you know that answer to that. Same answer as to why we don’t see UN monitors in Europe, Japan, etc…nor were there ever UN monitors in the old Soviet Union. Sorry, reality break time…the US IS special, as the last remaining superpower. Europe is special too, so is Japan…they are powerful nations, not easily bullied. Its the real world BG, not some vision of ‘how it should be’. Even if we weren’t ‘special’, it would be a complete waste for the UN to monitor US elections…a waste that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

The assertion that the US NEEDS UN monitors for an election is bullshit and you know it. Would you be saying we need UN monitors if the election had of gone to Gore instead?? Of course you wouldn’t, though it could have gone either way. BOTH sides were doing everything they could to get their man in the WH in the end there. Neither side came out of the affair with either the moral high ground or smelling like a rose. But both sides worked within our legitimate system. There was nothing illegal done.

-XT

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

And why not? Why exactly would it be any less “legitimate” for the U.N. to monitor elections in the U.S. than for them to monitor elections in any other country? What’s so damned special about us?

We’re not “special”. That’s the whole point. Take a look at this list of countries that have requested UN sepervised elections, and tell us where the US falls. All of these countries are “special” in that they have either a history of massive corruption, have recently come out of a period of civil war, or are nascient democracies holding their first elections.

[BarnOwl]

@John Mace

All of these countries are “special” in that they have either a history of massive corruption, have recently come out of a period of civil war, or are nascient democracies holding their first elections.

(Bolding mine.)

One of out three ought to qualify us.

[rjung]

@xtisme

Please. It was a publicity stunt.

Publicity stunt or not, I see nothing wrong with wanting to shine a spotlight on the issue of election fraud and its prevention. Sure beats “shut up and accept the results we cooked up” any day.

[John_Mace]

@Antiochus

(Bolding mine.)

One of out three ought to qualify us.

Cite?

@rjung

Publicity stunt or not, I see nothing wrong with wanting to shine a spotlight on the issue of election fraud and its prevention. Sure beats “shut up and accept the results we cooked up” any day.

I agree, but not with the UN. For one thing, there are dozens of countries that genuinely need the UN to monitor their elections-- countries where the people have legitimate reasons to distruss their governments. Let’s not waste valuable resources. And secondly, the US is perfectly capable of fixing its own internal political problems.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

I think you know that answer to that. Same answer as to why we don’t see UN monitors in Europe, Japan, etc…nor were there ever UN monitors in the old Soviet Union. Sorry, reality break time…the US IS special, as the last remaining superpower. Europe is special too, so is Japan…they are powerful nations, not easily bullied.

But at least those other Great Powers have been willing, to some extent, to subordinate their precious sovereignty to organs of international law and government – the International Criminal Court, for instance. (Which I still hope we’ll join someday, and I hope the ICC will try Henry Kissinger for crimes against humanity. Bob Kerrey too.) The Bush Admin’s arrogance in disregarding the opinions of the international community has squandered every drop of international goodwill and sympathy we got out of the 9/11 attacks. The rest of the world now sees us as the New Empire, the power that thinks rules are for every other state but not for itself. We’ll be decades living that down. Letting the U.N. monitor our elections might go some small distance towards making amends.

@xtisme

The assertion that the US NEEDS UN monitors for an election is bullshit and you know it. Would you be saying we need UN monitors if the election had of gone to Gore instead?? Of course you wouldn’t, though it could have gone either way. BOTH sides were doing everything they could to get their man in the WH in the end there. Neither side came out of the affair with either the moral high ground or smelling like a rose. But both sides worked within our legitimate system. There was nothing illegal done.

:rolleyes: :mad:

Try telling that to black voters here in Florida who found their way to the polls barred by mysterious police roadblocks on election day – not to mention those who got to the polls but were told they couldn’t vote because their names were on a “felons list” even though they had no criminal records. And then there were those who got to vote, but whose votes were never counted – in Florida and in other states. From “Vanishing Votes,” by Greg Palast, in The Nation, 4/29/04 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast):

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 guaranteed African-Americans the right to vote–but it did not guarantee the right to have their ballots counted. And in one in seven cases, they aren’t.

Take Gadsden County. Of Florida’s sixty-seven counties, Gadsden has the highest proportion of black residents: 58 percent. It also has the highest “spoilage” rate, that is, ballots tossed out on technicalities: one in eight votes cast but not counted. Next door to Gadsden is white-majority Leon County, where virtually every vote is counted (a spoilage rate of one in 500).

How do votes spoil? Apparently, any old odd mark on a ballot will do it. In Gadsden, some voters wrote in Al Gore instead of checking his name. Their votes did not count.

Harvard law professor Christopher Edley Jr., a member of the Commission on Civil Rights, didn’t like the smell of all those spoiled ballots. He dug into the pile of tossed ballots and, deep in the commission’s official findings, reported this: 14.4 percent of black votes–one in seven–were “invalidated,” i.e., never counted. By contrast, only 1.6 percent of nonblack voters’ ballots were spoiled.

Florida’s electorate is 11 percent African-American. Florida refused to count 179,855 spoiled ballots. A little junior high school algebra applied to commission numbers indicates that 54 percent, or 97,000, of the votes “spoiled” were cast by black folk, of whom more than 90 percent chose Gore. The nonblack vote divided about evenly between Gore and Bush. Therefore, had Harris allowed the counting of these ballots, Al Gore would have racked up a plurality of about 87,000 votes in Florida–162 times Bush’s official margin of victory.

That’s Florida. Now let’s talk about America. In the 2000 election, 1.9 million votes cast were never counted. Spoiled for technical reasons, like writing in Gore’s name, machine malfunctions and so on. The reasons for ballot rejection vary, but there’s a suspicious shading to the ballots tossed into the dumpster. Edley’s team of Harvard experts discovered that just as in Florida, the number of ballots spoiled was–county by county, precinct by precinct–in direct proportion to the local black voting population.

Florida’s racial profile mirrors the nation’s–both in the percentage of voters who are black and the racial profile of the voters whose ballots don’t count. “In 2000, a black voter in Florida was ten times as likely to have their vote spoiled–not counted–as a white voter,” explains political scientist Philip Klinkner, co-author of Edley’s Harvard report. “National figures indicate that Florida is, surprisingly, typical. Given the proportion of nonwhite to white voters in America, then, it appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the USA, as many as 1 million votes, were cast by nonwhite voters.”

So there you have it. In the last presidential election, approximately 1 million black and other minorities voted, and their ballots were thrown away. And they will be tossed again in November 2004, efficiently, by computer–because HAVA and other bogus reform measures, stressing reform through complex computerization, do not address, and in fact worsen, the racial bias of the uncounted vote.

False_God was right: If what happened here in 2000 had happened in any other country, it would have been considered a coup d’etat.

That’s why we need UN monitors.

@John Mace

I agree, but not with the UN. For one thing, there are dozens of countries that genuinely need the UN to monitor their elections-- countries where the people have legitimate reasons to distruss their governments. Let’s not waste valuable resources. And secondly, the US is perfectly capable of fixing its own internal political problems.

The first part of that is completely misconceived. Isn’t the U.S. supposed to be the supreme Great Power and the most important force for democracy in the world? What could be more important to the rest of the world than making sure our next election, unlike our last one, comes off clean? And pardon me if I react to the second part with a certain, to say the least, skepticism.

[2sense]

The testimony given to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform shows that foreign observers did moniter the 2000 election. Check out the Panel on International Perspectives. From that I gather informal foreign observation isn’t unusual.

I would be all for UN monitering of US elections. I think we need an oversight body willing to take responsibility. Crom knows the Federal Election Commission hasn’t gotten the job done.

[rjung]

@John Mace

I agree, but not with the UN. For one thing, there are dozens of countries that genuinely need the UN to monitor their elections-- countries where the people have legitimate reasons to distruss their governments.

What makes you think the people in the United States who distrust their government are being “unreasonable”? This administration has already given us plenty of reasons to distrust everything they do.

@John Mace

And secondly, the US is perfectly capable of fixing its own internal political problems.

And they say it’s the liberals who are naive…

[BrainGlutton]

@2sense

The testimony given to the National Commission on Federal Election Reform shows that foreign observers did moniter the 2000 election. Check out the Panel on International Perspectives. From that I gather informal foreign observation isn’t unusual.

Excellent link! Especially the testimony of Professor Robert Pastor:

So what have we learned from experiences abroad? I would like to propose four broad ideas for you to think about as you consider drafting the report. The first is clearest: we need to achieve more uniformity. Here, whether you have a balance that favors state or federal, it is clear that the federal system does not necessitate 10,000 different jurisdictions. At the minimal, the first step should be for the states to reach [tape unclear]…on the municipal and county levels, to transfer that authority from the secretary of state’s office, which is, of course, the first stage of an election commission: an extension of government to an autonomous state election commission that is responsible for the conduct of elections and also for statewide registration and for uniformity of standards.

Secondly, you may want to consider establishing a national election commission. It would not be bipartisan; it would aspire to be nonpartisan. It would aspire, like the Fed does, to be above politics and to be responsible for the administration of elections and have a clear and strong voice on democratic and election issues. We are fortunate that Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral commissioner of Canada, is here. He can describe for you a model that is very relevant to the United States precisely because provinces are even stronger in Canada than states are in the United States. This Commission would, not only try to aggregate the state registration into a single national registration list, but it also should consider monitoring fairness, inclusiveness, and legality of election laws.

Thirdly, with regard to the goal-it shouldn’t be hard because most countries have figured this out-to combine both our desire for inclusiveness and also our desire to come up with a system that is resistant to fraud. This system would encourage citizens to register and vote, but it would also make sure that only citizens vote and that they only vote once. This system is theoretically very simple but politically difficult, but one which I think you all ought to and * hope you all consider, to give citizens a voter citizenship card at the age of eighteen. Indeed, in the last semester of their senior year in high school, all students would be required to take a civic education course that would teach them how to vote, in which they might also be participating and observing or serving as polling officials. That card would automatically come into effect at the age of eighteen.

The final point is on polling officials. If we look at citizenship as a broader civic duty, like serving in the armed forces or serving on jury duty, then perhaps all citizens…and this is done in Mexico and many other countries throughout the world: there is a system of selecting, from an individual precinct, a group of citizens from that precinct to man the polling offices. That, I think, will enhance and give greater pride and greater involvement in the electoral process.

In short, I think there is much to be learned from the rest of the world.

(Emphasis added.) Amen!

As for the idea of a “national election commission” – I would go even further. I would create a separately elected fourth branch of government, the Tribunate, to police the other three branches and also to conduct “metagovernmental” functions, such as running the elections, and post-Census redistricting. See my GD thread on that topic: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462

[Ms2001]

@BrainGlutton

Try telling that to black voters here in Florida who found their way to the polls barred by mysterious police roadblocks on election day – not to mention those who got to the polls but were told they couldn’t vote because their names were on a “felons list” even though they had no criminal records. And then there were those who got to vote, but whose votes were never counted – in Florida and in other states. From “Vanishing Votes,” by Greg Palast, in The Nation, 4/29/04 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast): […]

Incidentally, I’ve always thought this was a little bizarre - would people bent on stealing the election really go so far as to put marks on black voters’ ballots?

But I watched Orwell Rolls In His Grave last night, and there was some footage of Greg Palast at a talk explaining how it could’ve happened: The machines that read the ballots can be set to reject spoiled ballots immediately… or to accept them. When the switch is set one way, an invalid ballot will come right back out of the machine, and the election official will throw it away and give you a fresh ballot. When it’s set the other way, an invalid ballot will be accepted, and you won’t realize you made a mistake until a few months later, when you suspect your vote might not have been counted. And according to Palast, the machines in mainly black counties were set to accept the invalid ballots, while the machines in mainly white counties were set to reject them.

[HubZilla]

@BrainGlutton

Try telling that to black voters here in Florida who found their way to the polls barred by mysterious police roadblocks on election day .

Did this really happen?

[BrainGlutton]

@HubZilla

Did this really happen?

No cites, but I saw it reported on several local news shows in November and December 2000.

[erislover]

It seems reports were exagerrated. ink.

One has to wonder how one would prove that one was properly registered and denied the right to vote. After all, votes are anonymous. How are you supposed to show that your vote isn’t present in the results?

Anyway…

[BrainGlutton]

@erislover

It seems reports were exagerrated. ink

From the linked article:

Republicans, who are also courting black voters in some parts of Florida, say the Democrats and their supporters are recklessly rekindling bad feelings that were based on mostly false allegations. They say rumors of black voter intimidation in 2000 remain grossly exaggerated: a Florida Highway Patrol investigation of an unauthorized police checkpoint near a precinct in a black neighborhood outside Tallahassee, for example, found no evidence that it delayed or prevented blacks from voting.

I’d feel a lot more comfortable if the investigation proved there were no unauthorized police checkpoints near the polls on election day. If there were – what were they doing there?

[XT]

@BrainGlutton

I’d feel a lot more comfortable if the investigation proved there were no unauthorized police checkpoints near the polls on election day. If there were – what were they doing there?

huh? You’d feel comfortable ‘if the investigation proved there were no unauthorized police checkpoints near the polls on election day’?? Well, shouldn’t you feel comfortable then since, at least as far as I can tell from the cite, there WERE no unauthorized police checkpoints?? Is it a typo or am I misreading what you are saying?

@BrainGlutton

Try telling that to black voters here in Florida who found their way to the polls barred by mysterious police roadblocks on election day – not to mention those who got to the polls but were told they couldn’t vote because their names were on a “felons list” even though they had no criminal records. And then there were those who got to vote, but whose votes were never counted – in Florida and in other states. From “Vanishing Votes,” by Greg Palast, in The Nation, 4/29/04 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast):

I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen any REAL evidence of some wide spread conspiricy by the Republicans (or anyone else) systematically disenfranchize minorities in the US to shift an election (let alone the one in 2000)…at least not in a few decades anyway. The lists? I’ve seen them and conceed there were folks on there that shouldn’t have been excluded. But conspiricy to steal the election vs bureacratic bumbling, my occams razor is coming down firmly on bumbling.

If you have some real evidence of police blockades and systematic attempts to disenfranchize blacks/hispanics/etc I’m willing to look it over and judge for myself. Does it happen? I’m sure it does. But its on a small scale, and a lot of it is simply bureaucratic apathy from what I’ve read…when there is any kind of doubt its simply the easiest path to discount said vote than do the work to find out the truth.

Doesn’t take a deep dark conspiricy, simply a bunch of lazy ass bureaucrats. And we don’t need UN oversite to fix such problems, or even the occational election manuvers by BOTH parties either…we are capable of taking care of our own problems, we have a stable and working democracy that is mostly a success, and in any case its a pretty minor problem all things considered. Contrast that to places with REAL problems and then you’ll see why the idea is so ludicrous.

-XT

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

Well, shouldn’t you feel comfortable then since, at least as far as I can tell from the cite, there WERE no unauthorized police checkpoints?? Is it a typo or am I misreading what you are saying?

I quoted direct from the referenced story – above:

a Florida Highway Patrol investigation of an unauthorized police checkpoint near a precinct in a black neighborhood outside Tallahassee, for example, found no evidence that it delayed or prevented blacks from voting.

IOW, the checkpoint WAS there but the FHP, investigating itself or a brother police agency, “found no evidence,” etc. Pardon me if I don’t think this looks so pure it floats.

[Zoe]

John Mace: John Mace: the US is perfectly capable of fixing its own internal political problems.(bolding mine)

Is it only in the South that rigging an election is referred to as “fixing” an election? The irony was too much to pass up.

xtisme: The assertion that the US NEEDS UN monitors for an election is bullshit and you know it. Would you be saying we need UN monitors if the election had of gone to Gore instead??

If Gore’s campaign manager in Florida had been Kathrine Harris and his brother had been the Governor of Florida and his cousin had been the first to call Florida for Gore and that had been Bush’s name in the confusing position on the ballot and Gore supporters rioting outside the doors while the ballots were being counted and Cubans who had been denied the right to vote and…

…BOTH sides were doing everything they could to get their man in the WH in the end there. Neither side came out of the affair with either the moral high ground or smelling like a rose.

You have just given some very good reasons for having UN monitors.
But both sides worked within our legitimate system. There was nothing illegal done.
[/quote]

Of course there was. People were illegally denied the right to vote or have their votes counted. Even recently there was an attempt to remove legitimate voters from the rolls in Florida. That plan had to be abandoned.

erislover: One has to wonder how one would prove that one was properly registered and denied the right to vote. After all, votes are anonymous. How are you supposed to show that your vote isn’t present in the results?

This happened to my husband one time. He had registered and they had no record of his registration when he went to vote. We drove directly to the the Election Commission and filed a complaint. This was a mayoral election. Although he would have voted to reelect the mayor and he made no mention of wanting to see the mayor that night, the Commissioner told him, “Don’t you dare try to see the mayor. He’s busy.”

So we went to the newspaper. In the parking lot we found a television crew. We talked to them instead. They came to the house the next day and filmed an interview which was on the evening news. There had been several similar complaints.

Eventually the registration forms (about a thousand of them) were recovered from the trunk of someone’s car. It was probably a careless accident.

But that is one way that you prove it.