International Observers to Monitor US Elections in November

Link47 · 08-08-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

International team to monitor presidential election
Observers will be part of OSCE's human rights office
From David de Sola
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A team of international observers will monitor the presidential election in November, according to the U.S. State Department.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was invited to monitor the election by the State Department. The observers will come from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

It will be the first time such a team has been present for a U.S. presidential election.

"The U.S. is obliged to invite us, as all OSCE countries should," spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir said. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment. They signed a document 10 years ago to ask OSCE to observe elections."

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

After Annan rejected their request, saying the administration must make the application, the Democrats asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to do so.

The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.

In a letter dated July 30 and released last week, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats about the invitation to OSCE, without mentioning the U.N. issue.

"I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process," said Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, who spearheaded the effort to get U.N. observers.

"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she said in a news release.

Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California agreed.

"This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent," she said.

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

OSCE, the world's largest regional security organization, will send a preliminary mission to Washington in September to assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission, Gunnarsdottir said.

The organization, which counts among its missions conflict prevention and postconflict rehabilitation, will then determine how many observers are required and where in the United States they will be sent.

"OSCE-participating [nations] agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States," a State Department spokesman said.

The spokesman said the United States does not have any details on the size and composition of the observers or what countries will provide them.

OSCE, based in Vienna, Austria, has sent more than 10,000 personnel to monitor more than 150 elections and referenda in more than 30 countries during the past decade, Gunnarsdottir said.

In November 2002, OSCE sent 10 observers on a weeklong mission to monitor the U.S. midterm elections. OSCE also sent observers to monitor the California gubernatorial recall election last year.

More recently, OSCE monitored the elections in Northern Ireland in November and in Spain in March.

Hell no, We're the US, we're the model for democracy. If the world needs to monitor US, the something is wrong.

***CaptHayfever*** · 08-08-2004, 09:34 PM

^Dude, a couple million people couldn't understand what a simple arrow meant last time around. Something IS wrong.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

The mystery name · 08-08-2004, 09:37 PM

You're not paying for it, so nothing could go wrong. Unless of course there WAS civil rights violations against blacks in Florida elections and you want Bush to win.

If there's nothing to hide, then it DOESN'T matter!

Link47 · 08-08-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptHayfever:
^Dude, a couple million people couldn't understand what a simple arrow meant last time around. Something IS wrong.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Yeah, the problem is that they are morons. Stupidity =/= problems with the system

Nick · 08-08-2004, 10:47 PM

No, the problem is that the voting methods used in this country (especially in Florida) are horrendously outdated. Outdated methods lead to unneeded controversy, and people are far too quick to say "OMFG THEIR VOET DOES NOT COUNT." That is bull****. If someone votes, they deserve their vote to count, not to have THE CANDIDATE'S BROTHER'S ADMINISTRATION TELL THEM "NO, YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT--ELECTION OVER."

I find that its a larger problem that they STILL have yet to replace the outdated ballot systems. Do we need Internet or fully electronic ballots? No, but we need something better than a card and a stylus.

***CaptHayfever*** · 08-08-2004, 11:56 PM

^^I meant problems with the educational system.

^Definitely not electronic ever, but yeah.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Nick · 08-09-2004, 12:14 AM

Well, they have electronic hybrids out there. Its not a computer screen, and its still basically a punch ballot of some sort, but what it does is allows you to select your choices on a huge touch board (not even screen here, this is like late 70s, early 80s tech). Using a friggin stylus is idiotic.

However, the point of education is a very good one. Not sure how many people here are even eligable to vote, but I'd like to know how many of you were actually instructed how to vote. Not make the decision, but actually go out and vote (be it finding the place to register, where to go, or how to use the machines).

***CaptHayfever*** · 08-09-2004, 01:05 AM

Yeah, when I was really little I used to tag along with my dad when he went, and the polling place (it was someone's garage at the time, now it's a school gym) had a little mock-up booth for kids where you could vote for Washington or Lincoln, so I've known how the stylus works for most of my life.
I didn't know the word "stylus", though. I called it "the pokey thing". [img]smile.gif[/img]

A year or two ago I learned how to register (walk up to library desk and say "I wanna register to vote", bring ID), and when I turned 18, my dad taught me how to go through the sign-in schpiel for the spring primary. I'm assuming it's similar for the general election.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Koga · 08-09-2004, 10:47 AM

I think this is a very good idea, condiring the 2000 election.

The US, a model democracy? You're kidding, right? No two-party democracy is a true democracy.

Over here, nearly all voting goes electronically. You just push the button for your candidate, and then a red button to vote.

Princess Zelda of Hyrule · 08-09-2004, 12:44 PM

And they tell us to mind our own business.

Pieist · 08-09-2004, 01:01 PM

Sounds odd...

El Barto · 08-09-2004, 02:15 PM

Who, specifically, is 'they,' Pzoh?

Nick · 08-09-2004, 04:30 PM

Monitering elections insures a fair process. Its not like the moniters are going to change the results of the election...just make sure that votes are counted and the prevention of another 2000-style event where votes are just ignored. Not allowing monitering on the basis that "we invented modern democracy" is like saying "Government representatives can murder because they wrote the laws." In essence, we tend to demand that lesser developed democracies allow moniters during their elections, so why shouldnt' we be subject to the same rule? After all, if our process isn't flawed like some here believe, we have nothing to worry about.

[ August 09, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Lurch1982 ]

Princess Zelda of Hyrule · 08-09-2004, 06:14 PM

1. Why do they have to be non-American observers?

2. Had Gore won the 2000 election, this wouldn't be happening. I'm almost dead certain.

DELICIOUS POISON · 08-09-2004, 06:51 PM

1. Because they bare little bias, if any.
2. Go ahead and what-if yourself straight to hell. I'd be a fan of the idea, either way.

Nick · 08-10-2004, 12:06 AM

1.) Any american observer would be accused of partisan motives and would not accomplish anything. Non-national observers escape that and provide a sense of neutrality. If outside observations are required on another country, we're not going to accept a team from that country's government. They don't represent a neutral and outside look on the process.

2.) You're kidding, right? Well, I mean aside that all of the disputed votes were votes for gore, and aside that said votes would have won gore the election and there wouldn't have been any sort of dispute, a republican controlled congress/senate would NEVER let that side if the situation were reversed.

08-08-2004, 09:34 PM	#2
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,586 Thanks: 188 Thanked 851 Times in 537 Posts Points: 112,537.07 Bank: 1,345.79 Total Points: 113,882.87 Donate	^Dude, a couple million people couldn't understand what a simple arrow meant last time around. Something IS wrong. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

08-08-2004, 09:37 PM	#3
The mystery name Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: It\'s a mystery Posts: 85 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 635.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,135.00 Donate	You're not paying for it, so nothing could go wrong. Unless of course there WAS civil rights violations against blacks in Florida elections and you want Bush to win. If there's nothing to hide, then it DOESN'T matter!

08-08-2004, 10:47 PM	#5
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,708.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,208.00 Donate	No, the problem is that the voting methods used in this country (especially in Florida) are horrendously outdated. Outdated methods lead to unneeded controversy, and people are far too quick to say "OMFG THEIR VOET DOES NOT COUNT." That is bull****. If someone votes, they deserve their vote to count, not to have THE CANDIDATE'S BROTHER'S ADMINISTRATION TELL THEM "NO, YOUR VOTE DOES NOT COUNT--ELECTION OVER." I find that its a larger problem that they STILL have yet to replace the outdated ballot systems. Do we need Internet or fully electronic ballots? No, but we need something better than a card and a stylus.

08-08-2004, 11:56 PM	#6
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,586 Thanks: 188 Thanked 851 Times in 537 Posts Points: 112,537.07 Bank: 1,345.79 Total Points: 113,882.87 Donate	^^I meant problems with the educational system. ^Definitely not electronic ever, but yeah. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

08-09-2004, 12:14 AM	#7
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,708.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,208.00 Donate	Well, they have electronic hybrids out there. Its not a computer screen, and its still basically a punch ballot of some sort, but what it does is allows you to select your choices on a huge touch board (not even screen here, this is like late 70s, early 80s tech). Using a friggin stylus is idiotic. However, the point of education is a very good one. Not sure how many people here are even eligable to vote, but I'd like to know how many of you were actually instructed how to vote. Not make the decision, but actually go out and vote (be it finding the place to register, where to go, or how to use the machines).

08-09-2004, 01:05 AM	#8
*CaptHayfever* Smash Supermod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 19,586 Thanks: 188 Thanked 851 Times in 537 Posts Points: 112,537.07 Bank: 1,345.79 Total Points: 113,882.87 Donate	Yeah, when I was really little I used to tag along with my dad when he went, and the polling place (it was someone's garage at the time, now it's a school gym) had a little mock-up booth for kids where you could vote for Washington or Lincoln, so I've known how the stylus works for most of my life. I didn't know the word "stylus", though. I called it "the pokey thing". [img]smile.gif[/img] A year or two ago I learned how to register (walk up to library desk and say "I wanna register to vote", bring ID), and when I turned 18, my dad taught me how to go through the sign-in schpiel for the spring primary. I'm assuming it's similar for the general election. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

08-09-2004, 10:47 AM	#9
Koga Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Netherlands Gender: Posts: 17,093 Thanks: 104 Thanked 173 Times in 116 Posts Points: 106,341.41 Bank: 20,391.94 Total Points: 126,733.35 Donate	I think this is a very good idea, condiring the 2000 election. The US, a model democracy? You're kidding, right? No two-party democracy is a true democracy. Over here, nearly all voting goes electronically. You just push the button for your candidate, and then a red button to vote.

08-09-2004, 12:44 PM	#10
Princess Zelda of Hyrule Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Hyrule Castle Gender: Posts: 6,128 Thanks: 35 Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts Points: 7,519.36 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,019.36 Donate	And they tell us to mind our own business.

08-09-2004, 01:01 PM	#11
Pieist Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: In a graveyard Gender: Posts: 1,272 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,712.01 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 3,212.01 Donate	Sounds odd...

08-09-2004, 02:15 PM	#12
El Barto Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,708 Thanks: 1 Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts Points: 1,499.12 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,999.12 Donate	Who, specifically, is 'they,' Pzoh?

08-09-2004, 04:30 PM	#13
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,708.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,208.00 Donate	Monitering elections insures a fair process. Its not like the moniters are going to change the results of the election...just make sure that votes are counted and the prevention of another 2000-style event where votes are just ignored. Not allowing monitering on the basis that "we invented modern democracy" is like saying "Government representatives can murder because they wrote the laws." In essence, we tend to demand that lesser developed democracies allow moniters during their elections, so why shouldnt' we be subject to the same rule? After all, if our process isn't flawed like some here believe, we have nothing to worry about. [ August 09, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Lurch1982 ]

08-09-2004, 06:14 PM	#14
Princess Zelda of Hyrule Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Hyrule Castle Gender: Posts: 6,128 Thanks: 35 Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts Points: 7,519.36 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 8,019.36 Donate	1. Why do they have to be non-American observers? 2. Had Gore won the 2000 election, this wouldn't be happening. I'm almost dead certain.

08-09-2004, 06:51 PM	#15
DELICIOUS POISON Retro Nintendo Supermod Art & Literature Mod Metroid Mod Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 16,299 Thanks: 523 Thanked 1,436 Times in 721 Posts Points: 8,775.88 Bank: 2,615,176.24 Total Points: 2,623,952.12 Donate	1. Because they bare little bias, if any. 2. Go ahead and what-if yourself straight to hell. I'd be a fan of the idea, either way.

08-10-2004, 12:06 AM	#16
Nick Banned Join Date: Dec 1969 Posts: 0 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 10,708.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 11,208.00 Donate	1.) Any american observer would be accused of partisan motives and would not accomplish anything. Non-national observers escape that and provide a sense of neutrality. If outside observations are required on another country, we're not going to accept a team from that country's government. They don't represent a neutral and outside look on the process. 2.) You're kidding, right? Well, I mean aside that all of the disputed votes were votes for gore, and aside that said votes would have won gore the election and there wouldn't have been any sort of dispute, a republican controlled congress/senate would NEVER let that side if the situation were reversed.