What happens if other countries contest our election??

Factual Questions
1

We’ve seen the US do it many times, most recently in Yugoslavia. There’s allegations of voter fraud, “lost” ballots, irregularites. So the US speaks up and says “nope, we won’t let you do it that way. That’s not how Democracy works, Slobadon. Step aside, you lost.”

Hey, wait a second … WE have allegations of voter fraud, “lost” ballots and irregularities. I know we won’t care much if, say, Lichtenstein cries foul, but what if the entire EU or EC (whichever it is now) decides that they believe Gore should honestly be our next president due to fraud in Florida? Would we care? Would that have any weight in the process? Or would it simply make it harder for Bush to work with them? Or WOULD they work with Bush? The US has cut back funds and assistance when we don’t agree with fraudulent votes. Would Europe suddenly become anti-US?

2

It doesn’t matter what they think of our politics. They have to deal with the US, the US is that big [of a market].

Actually, it’s a lot like the US and China. We would really like China to change, but they are big enough [as a potential market] that we deal with them regardless of what they do.

3

Good question!

The US always acts so high-and-mighty on so many issues, but can be found to be hypocritical on them. We have starving children, police corruption, crooked politicians, election fraud, racial bigotry, etc.

As to election fraud, I think like rat turds in processed foods, a little is to be expected and tolerated. But massive fraud (akin to finding a whole rat in your Coca Cola can) is something that the international community has the right to protest.

4

Personally I would have no problem with sending Jimmy Carter to Florida to monitor the recount.

5

Let them go to the U.N., assemble a coalition and send in the troops. At that point we’ll see if the Second Amendment was worth all the arguing over for all these years.

6

Normally, protests against unfair election procedures aren’t carried out by individual countries, but by some overnational entity - UN, EU, OSCE or OAS, I guess. And the observers are normally there because they are invited.

Even if international observers see signs of election fraud, it’s not as if there’s a possibility to demand a new election. Mostly, it serves as a deterrent against the most obvious fraud - if you’re going to the trouble of having elections, you’ll want the benefits that come from being an elected head of state in a proper democracy, right ?

And while there’s screw-ups and perhaps even a miniscule amount of fraud in the US elections, noone will seriously challenge the results. (Who expected the race to be that close, anyway ?) Which is lucky, because noone has neither a stick nor a carrot big enough to make the US change its course.

S. Norman

7

Like starfish said the US is too big too ignore and/or piss off like that. Of course, any country is free to say, “We don’t recognize your election as legitimate.”

And we go, “Yeah…so whatcha gonna do about it?”

And they probably go, “…Nuthin…”

The could, of course, put a trade embargo in place but since the US generally imports more stuff than we export to most places that would generally hurt the country placing the embargo more than it’d hurt the US.

The difference is that the US has a strong belief in the rule-of-law. Certainly people commit crimes in the US but on the whole our government is more – diligent and forthright – than many other countries in seeing those crimes prosecuted.

8

What happens if other countries contest the US election? Probably nothing.

Somebody mentioned Yugoslavia, but they might as well have said East Timor or just about any country where a dictator or despot or oligarchy, not to mention the corresponding lack of free elections, has been in place for years. The people in such places are generally not used to free elections, secret ballots, the lack of intimidation by the current ruler’s heavies, and other things that we in the Western democracies take for granted. In such places, the UN sends in observers from stable democracies (not just the US, but also places like Canada and Australia) to make sure that the rules are followed and the election is fair. When fraud and intimidation occur, the US and other Western observers complain, and rightly so.

But the US has a long tradition of recurring elections. Most Americans are familiar with the voting process, and know their constitutional rights. Joe and Jane American Voter are not physically threatened on election day by government hit squads, nor are they new to voting–they have done it before (though there are always people voting for the first time), and they know what to expect.

Because of this, the US and other stable democracies don’t need UN or outside help in running their elections. They can do it on their own, and if some kind of questionable activity occurs–as in this US election–the stable democracies can take care of it themselves by looking to their respective constitutions and due processes of law.

Regardless of who wins this US election, the American military won’t stage a coup d’etat, the people won’t take to the streets in open revolt, and when the count settles, someone will have been elected fairly by the rules laid down in the US Constitution. (Assuming the weird Palm Beach situation is resolved, of course.) Other countries’ help in keeping things in the US fair and calm is unnecessary, in other words.

Knowing this, other nations really don’t have a cause for complaint if they don’t like whoever wins this US election. The other countries may have concerns over who wins, because it might affect how the US deals with these places, but they cannot do much of anything if they don’t like the eventual result.

9

David Letterman hadthe right answer: let’s have four years of Ophra.