Here we go...UN Election Observer Update

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cacique500

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2003
Messages
1,275
Location
Georgia
This was posted on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/election.observers.ap/index.html

U.S. gets election advice from outsiders
Thursday: 26 days to the election
Thursday, October 7, 2004 Posted: 7:26 AM EDT (1126 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States, accustomed to giving advice on democracy, is in the unfamiliar position of getting some from international election observers schooled in Tajikistan, Ethiopia and other emerging democracies.

Two observer groups have been examining U.S. voting systems for compliance with international standards for free and fair elections.

The very idea disgusts some Republicans, who say it sends a message of weakness and compromises U.S. sovereignty. (Special Report: America Votes 2004)

Some Democrats say the scrutiny is overdue.

Former President Carter, for one, has said some U.S. voting systems don't meet international standards "even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair." (Disabled hail e-voting despite doubts)

The observers already have found problems typical in countries with far less than 200 years of voting experience.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 55-state security group, said ballot secrecy is at risk because of the way some overseas ballots are being handled.

The Bush administration invited the OSCE observers as part of a standing agreement among member states.

David MacDonald, a Canadian member of a team organized by the San Francisco human rights group Global Exchange, said observers were shocked to find that partisan officials run U.S. elections.

Requiring election officers to be nonpartisan "is as close as you can get in democratic or electoral terms to a universal norm," MacDonald said after visiting Missouri, where Secretary of State Matt Blunt, a Republican, is the chief electoral officer and a candidate for governor. "There are some very serious problems that need to be addressed."

Largest such effort yet
The two organizations' teams represent the largest effort yet by foreign observers to watch a U.S. election, though it's small compared to the armies of lawyers and volunteers recruited by the political parties and civic groups to watch the polls on Election Day, November 2.

The OSCE, which has assigned more than 100 observers to the task, declined to make any of them available for interviews before a news conference Thursday.

But it catalogued potential problems in a preliminary report issued September 28.

The report said touch-screen machines that don't print paper ballots for use during a possible recount could delay the election outcome beyond November 2 and create more, not less, controversy.

It faulted procedures with absentee and provisional ballots, cited reports of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, and criticized moves by a few states to allow overseas and military voters to fax rather than mail completed ballots.

The report also noted that many of the reforms envisioned by an election assistance law enacted after the disputed 2000 presidential election won't be in place by Nov. 2, and raised concerns that the right to vote "may not be evenly applied or protected throughout the country."

Whether U.S. voting systems meet international standards has been the subject of intense debate since major weaknesses were exposed during the recount of presidential ballots in Florida in 2000.

United Nations guidelines call for an "independent electoral authority," and for systems that guarantee the will of the voters will be followed and counted equally. The OSCE specifies that vote-counting must be transparent and open to observation.

The observers' presence has drawn stinging criticism from some Republicans.

"What do foreign observers bring to American elections?" Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Florida, wrote to constituents. "We are not a country suppressed by tyranny and aggression; we are a free nation built upon a foundation of citizen democracy."

Democratic Party attorney Bob Bauer said the presence of foreign election monitors along with observers from civic groups will help the party ensure access to the polls. Some Democrats failed in an attempt to bring in U.N. monitors.

"We're all essentially trying to assure that the laws are followed and the rights of voters are respected," he said. "So we view them as doing work that is entirely compatible with our own."
 
Like we're some craphole third world country. They'd better not get between me and the door to my polling place.
 
When questions of SHTF scenerios come up they generally center around firearms. Firearm confiscation, inspections, something. I've said before, when people say that this will never happen and imply the US is eternal, that we WILL see collapse and chaos...but not necessarily initiated by the things we expect, like firearms Rights.

Well, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that THIS might just be the trigger. But, hey, I could be wrong and nothing bad can ever happen here...
 
Elections and the counting of votes should be done in an open and transparent way. However, saying that there's a need for observers from foreign nations to ensure this is absurd.

Do you really think that people who serve as foreign observes are any less opinionated in matters of politics than citizens of the United States?

I don't know it it's just a scewed CNN report, or a scewed report by the observers, but it sounds like the only problems they found are the ones the dems have been complaining about, and ignore the ones the Republicans have issues with.

No mention of votor fraud through the use of motor-voter and lack of a requirement to verify the identities or even the existance of a real person with the identity of the voters.

Instead they state concerns over some States allowing military members to fax in ballots rather than mail them in. Notice that they are allowing it, not requiring it. Soldiers lose an amount of privacy by using the fax method. However, the process is still less likely to result in votor fraud than voting in the states themselves, and the soldiers still have the option of mailing the ballots if they don't want anyone to be able to see who they voted for.

I agree on the issue of touch screen machines.

However, all these issues have already been brought up before the foreign observers mentioned them. They are adding nothing to the election process, and considering the popularity of making disparaging comments about the United States in other countries, I don't see why we are giving these people a forum and acknowledging them.

The problem in the US isn't seeing that there are issues with our voting system, we have enough transparancy to show them already. The problem is that those who are benefiting from them (mainly Democrats) are keeping those problems from being fixed, and blatantly lieing about the problems for political gains (Jesse Jackson).
 
Will the blue helmets be allowed operational and loaded firearms on US soil?
Not right away. That will take a few years, after the next set of AWB's, Small Arms Control measures, ammunition restrictions, etc. Be patient.
 
These observers know who butters their bread. They're working with leftists, and they know thier job is to smear the results in pro-GW areas in contested states. Expect all sorts of outrageous claims.
 
Cynicism

Living in Florida and hearing of the fiasco's that took place last election I can appreciate some of what is being said in the article. However, I do agree that voting fraud isn't a partisan problem. You can watch a Discover channel special on how Truman won his statewide election in Missouri as a result of stuffed ballots and other corruption. I am sure that at a local level there are people from every party doing things they shouldn't.

I do agree that having the supervisor of elections be a candidate in the elections pursuing a higher office is a bit odd. Can't he step down temporarily?

As for the "partisanship" issue, in a country where most registered voters are affiliated with 1 of 2 political parties it seems farfetched to think you would get "nonpartisan" anything. Does a party affiliation automatically imply bias?

I do agree with the criticism of electronic voting machines. I can't believe ANYONE approved voting machines that don't have a printed backup. Also, the way we do mail-in ballots is pretty strange.
 
It is a shame some THR members CAN'T READ!

Cacique500 and others, you do realize that this article is NOT about UN officials watching our election right?

The article says two observer groups are watching the election.

One is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), who were invited by BUSH himself.

The other group is organized by something called Global Exchange.

NEITHER OF THESE IS THE UN!!!

In fact the article goes on to say that the attempt to bring in UN observers failed.

Maybe instead of loading up your guns and aiming for blue helmets, everyone needs to sit back and read the articles a little more carefully.
 
It is a shame some THR members CAN'T READ!

Perhaps this member can bestow his vast knowledge on the history of these organizations among his illiterate fellow members, to allay their concerns? These organizations mean nothing to me. However, a quick search reveals some disturbing information.

OSCE advertises itself as a close partner with the UN. Link: http://www.osce.org/ec/partners/international/un/

Q: How is this organization so much better than the UN? How are the officials elected/appointed? Why should we feel less concerned about this group monitoring elections than the United Nations?

Global Exchange's related websites even more disturbing... Link: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/unitedstates/democracy/index.html

The first thing you see is a photo of a protester holding a sign "Electoral College Sucks"!! Impartial? Whats the agenda here? Hmmmmm......

Want to get steamed? Go to global exchange's "Fair Election 2004" website...Link: http://www.fairelection.us/

Take their democracy quiz (link at left side of page). I think the quiz was designed by the Brady Campaign; rhetorical questions dripping with inuendo.

A casual reading of some of this information leaves this member puzzled and even more concerned that this "election oversight" is a ticking time bomb, as cosmoline expressed.

However, the erudite lonegunman is invited to educate the rest of us illiterates.
 
Here's a nugget from Global exchange's website:

8. Reduce wealth inequality

Inequality in economic power distorts the democratic process. In a system where money controls politics, the concerns of poor people, particularly people of color, are not adequately addressed. People who are struggling to survive often do not have the time, education, or resources to fully participate in the political process. We need a national living wage so that all citizens have the opportunity to take part in our democracy.

Link: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/unitedstates/democracy/twelveWays.html


Concern gives way to outrage...what possible good can come from giving these commies a stage on which to promote their agenda? What it Bush thinking?
 
There is one point where I'm in agreement with these folks:
David MacDonald, a Canadian member of a team organized by the San Francisco human rights group Global Exchange, said observers were shocked to find that partisan officials run U.S. elections.

Requiring election officers to be nonpartisan "is as close as you can get in democratic or electoral terms to a universal norm," MacDonald said after visiting Missouri, where Secretary of State Matt Blunt, a Republican, is the chief electoral officer and a candidate for governor. "There are some very serious problems that need to be addressed."
I think that all election officials should be non-partisan. I find it unbelievable that in many counties and states, election officials are elected, not appointed. This can never be good for democracy... Just look at the chaos in Florida in 2000, where Democratic officials were in charge of most of the voting precincts with problems, but tried to blame the Republicans! In similar vein, look at the long-standing problems in Chicago, St. Louis, etc., where party "machines" have a stranglehold on the democratic process.

I don't know an immediate solution, apart from appointing all election officials rather than electing them, and requiring that all appointees take an oath of non-partisanship in office, with swingeing penalties for any breach.
 
<Poster's Comment> Bush may have thought he'd be throwing a bone to the opposition. Too bad the joker didn't research OSCE and who could show up on election day. The following article shows the upcoming electrion may well be payback. It is almost as if Bush doesn't think he as enough opposition; he has to create more. Make no bones about it. He alone is responsible for creating this particular problem.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/election.htm

International Election Monitoring Group Headed By Impeached U.S. judge;
Group Warns of Election Catastrophe


August 25, 2004

Washington, D.C.- The American Policy Center charged on Wednesday that the U.S. State Department has invited scandal, fraud, and corruption to the American electoral process with its decision to bring in foreign election observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to monitor the November presidential election.

APC, a grassroots activist organization located in suburban Washington, D.C., is alerting Americans to the dangers of inviting an international body to monitor the upcoming presidential election.

APC has discovered that the president of the OSCE election monitoring arm is none other than Florida Representative and disgraced federal judge, Alcee Hastings. He was elected President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on July 9 of this year. According to its website: "The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly's role [in the election monitoring process] is to deploy parliamentarians, primarily as short-term observers, and to provide political leadership to the OSCE monitoring operation." In other words, Alcee Hastings is at the top of the OSCE's election monitoring operation.

In 1988, The U.S. House of Representatives voted almost unanimously (413-3) to approve 17 articles of impeachment amounting to "high crimes and misdemeanors" against Hastings, who at the time was a federal judge. While sitting on the federal bench, an FBI bribery sting caught Hastings conspiring to obtain a $150,000 bribe in exchange for granting leniency to a pair of convicted racketeers. The Senate convicted Hastings of perjury and conspiracy to take a bribe. He is one of only a handful of judges ever to be impeached in the history of the U.S.

"The outrage just got more outrageous," said American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese. "Not only has the State Department invited a team of unaccountable, foreign bureaucrats to meddle in our free elections, but these meddlers are headed by one of the most corrupt individuals in the U.S. Congress."

"While they're at it," said DeWeese, "why doesn't the State Department invite O.J. Simpson to head up the FBI crime lab?"

Hastings is by no means an innocent bystander in the upcoming presidential election. Hastings is a House Democrat who represents Broward County, Florida-ground zero of the Election 2000 re-count fiasco. On June 14 of this year, the disgraced former judge declared to the Associated Press: "Any way we cut it, these people [the Bush Administration] are going to try and steal this election." Now Hastings, as president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, is in position to seriously affect the outcome of the 2004 vote.

"By caving to the demands of 13 leftist Congressmen that international election observers monitor the November 2 presidential election, the Bush Administration is not only shooting U.S. sovereignty, but shooting itself in the foot," said DeWeese. "There is a political agenda at work here. The OSCE is not an unbiased team of observers. If the vote in Florida or many other states is as close as predicted, you can bet that Alcee Hastings and his army of foreign monitors will do everything in their power to affect the outcome to their liking."

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) warned: "We should be wary about organizations like the OSCE that seek to involve themselves in our electoral process. The OSCE in particular has a terrible record in the newly-democratic countries of central Europe, where it normally operates. According to groups that follow the conduct of the OSCE, this organization does much more to undermine free elections than to promote them.

"In Bosnia in 1996, for example," said Rep. Paul, "the OSCE gave its seal of approval to parliamentary elections despite the fact that an impossible 107 percent of the possible voting-age population had voted. In 1998, the OSCE observer team that was to monitor the cease-fire between the Serbs and Albanians was caught sending targeting information back to the US and European Union in advance of the U.S.-led attack on Serbia. This year, the OSCE approved the election of Mikheil Saakashvili in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia with a Saddam Hussein-like 97 percent of the vote! There are dozens more similar examples."

"Clearly the OSCE has shown by its conduct and by its questionable choice of leadership that it is not an organization worthy of U.S. participation," DeWeese charged.

"Not only must the Bush Administration immediately rescind its invitation to the OSCE to monitor this year's election, but the White House must also withdraw our membership from this suspect group. Alcee Hastings is a blatant symbol of political corruption. Why on Earth would the U.S. government continue to support an organization lead by him, let alone pay 10 percent of its operating budget?"

© 2004 American Policy Center
 
Interesting that there are those that are saying the OSCE is part of the UN. I read the same web site info they did, and that is not the conclusion I came to. They say they are "partners" with the UN, and work in cooperation with it, but at not point do they say they are part of the UN.

They also claim to be partners with NATO, the European Union, and the Council of Europe (whatever that is). Does that mean that OSCE is part of those organizations also?

Can anyone point me to a legitimate reference that says OSCE is a part of the UN? If so, I am more than happy to stand corrected.

I was asked...

How is this organization so much better than the UN? How are the officials elected/appointed? Why should we feel less concerned about this group monitoring elections than the United Nations?

I never said it was better than the UN. But reference was made to "blue helmets" on US soil. Since the OSCE does not seem to be a part of the UN, then how are soldiers working under UN auspices going to end up here? That was really the whole point of my previous post. I believe many people made the knee jerk reaction that the UN was about to arrive here, put soldiers in the streets, and run the elections. This simply isnt about to happen.

I don't support the UN. But I dont think the OSCE is part of the UN (as far as I can tell from the material I have looked at), so I can't really see how it makes sense to hold the UN responsible.

Our President invited the OSCE to come watch our elections. Maybe its his fault this time and not the UN's fault that we have outsiders here trying to mind our business?

Here is a link from the US state department about the OSCE, and it makes no reference to it being part of the UN.

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/2001/4270.htm
 
So it is possible to be "partners" with the UN but not "part" of the UN? The distinction in all practical regards escapes me. When one "partners" with another it is generally because they share similar views and goals, agendas. meanwhile, the presence of Hastings pretty much demolishes any legitimacy they might have had.

Is it the fault of Bush? I'd say it is a bit of political foolishness on his part, but the blame squarely rests with the Dem politicos who initiated this disgrace.
 
"Partners" means they work with the UN, but are not under its direct control. They have their own governing board. This should not be a hard concept to appreciate, as two companies here will frequently "partner" for some particular project without actually becoming one unified company.

In practical terms, the distinction is very important. If the OSCE is not part of the UN, then it also has no military capability. Specific reference was made earlier to "blue helmets", remember. The OSCE has no teeth. This is a point of significant importance.

They also claim to be partnered with several other organization, including NATO, as I pointed out earlier. Does this mean they are part of NATO?

If Bush invited these people here, then I would say the blame is his. The buck stops in the Oval Office.
 
As I said, partnership generally indicates a shared mutual agenda. And stating the OSCE has no teeth is an assumption. One I'd tend to agree with...for now. OTOH their "teeth" would be much more likely to come in the form of the damage they can inflict on the credibility of the election via an eager media and Dem Spin-Masters than from troops in the streets.
 
Will these people be wearing any sort of identification or badges? Will there be any way of picking them out of the crowd?

When I voted the primary, two men showed up at the polls and stated to the poll workers that they were elections observers and asked them if there were any irregularities, then left about 2 minutes later. Not sure who these people were, but they looked American, spoke with the right accent for the area, and drove a subaru station wagon with Wisconsin plates.
 
I agree completely with Lone_Gunman in simply being objective. I also agree with those who are more than skeptical. I disagree with those who would make grand leaps in their conclusions. I believe these observers lend credibility to the election results. The corruption would be to deliberately endorse or undermine the results contrary to the actual legitimate voting. I am not so sure an invalid claim, a lie, would survive scrutiny, so the concept of observers doesn't bother me particularly. The US better think about worst case scenarios, however, because the wrong guy could be in office by the time any real corruption was verified. I think computerized voting as well as registration is the answer.

As far as partisan management of voting is concerned, there is no such thing as a non-partisan individual. At least, that concept would have no credibility. Something like a three member committee behind a chairman might be a better idea.

I am sorry to see that any credibility has been lent to Global Exchange, but do understand that it is meant to placate black voters.
 
Realgun, I am very skeptical of the OSCE, and don't think Bush should have invited them. I think they need to keep out of our business. We don't owe any outside group the right to come here and observe and critique our election process.

So please don't think I support the OSCE or Bush's decision to bring them in.

All I was saying is OSCE is not a part of UN, and many people had jumped to the conclusion that the UN was going to be monitoring the election, which they are not. The Democrats tried to get the UN here, but that got shot down and isnt happening. Blue Helmetted soldiers will not be in the US as some people had conjectured.

Again, the fact that the OSCE is not part of the UN is my main point. The fact they share a "mutual agenda" does not make them one big organization.


I would totally disagree with your statement "I believe these observers lend credibility to the election results." We have had free and mostly fair elections for 200 yrs now without the OSCE overseeing us, and I see no reason why their input now makes our elections any more legitimate.
 
I would totally disagree with your statement "I believe these observers lend credibility to the election results." We have had free and mostly fair elections for 200 yrs now without the OSCE overseeing us, and I see no reason why their input now makes our elections any more legitimate.

Actually, there have reportedly been outrageous abuses over those years, and some referee function is needed, not necessarily OSCE or any foreign involvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top