United Nations WILL monitor Presidential election

[ctdonath]

But I've yet to see anyone in the "sky is falling" contingement give anything even remotely resembling a plausible explanation as to how this will allow the UN to inject itself into the American democratic process.

1. OSCE "observes" voting process. (See prior post asking what "observing" constitutes.)
2. OSCE decides there are voting problems in Florida (hanging chads), California (unverified e-votes), Chicago (whole cemetaries voting), etc.
3. OSCE decides whole electoral college thingie is outdated and allows for too much variation in voting methods (see #2).
4. OSCE recommends USA scraps electoral college in favor of "consistent fair one-person-one-vote" elections featuring paper, pencil, wooden boxes, and one big counting site.
5. UN decides that world's most powerful nation should adhere to human rights principles (as defined by the UN's consensus of dictators as "one person one vote"), Syria leads successful push for declaring the USA a human-rights violator, and UN imposes sanctions on USA until our chosen voting system is replaced by standard "absentee ballots".

OK, it's a bit out there. But what assurance is there that OSCE would be fair, and their reports not abused by the UN to turn the world against us?

And the core question remains: what business is it of OSCE to "observe"? and observe what?

 

[Thumper]

So, umm, what authority do I have?

If I have to point it out (I noticed you're in Austin, so I probably do) you have the authority to act on that judgement, whether it be by posting it here for influence, or writing it up in the local paper.

How do you expect this outside authority you seem to welcome to administer their judgements? And why?

 

[ctdonath]

We signed a treaty several years ago, and observers were here during the midterm elections. You know, the elections where the people of the US voted decidedly Republican. What did the OSCE do then?

Nobody said they would do immediate and great evil.
What some of us are saying is that OSCE could do harm (slippery slope et al), has little good to offer (if there's a problem, let's find/fix it ourselves), violates basic principles (soveriegnty), and our elections are none of their business anyway.

Sometimes it takes a while for people to really realize our elected officials did something dumb (OSCE treaty), and it usually takes real harm happening for the stupidity to be reversed.

Last time OSCE sent, what, 10 observers? this time, how many? how many next time? what's the pattern of growth/involvement? why the growing interest?

If you really don't care if OSCE is here or not, why do you object to others saying "send 'em home"?

 

[JPL]

And here your scripted premise comes totally apart...

"and UN imposes sanctions on USA until our chosen voting system is replaced by standard "absentee ballots"."


Sanctions must be passed by the UN Security Council.

The United States has one of 5 absolute vetos on the Security Council.

If one of the 5 permanent members votes No, even if the other 4 permanent members vote yes, along with the 15 rotating members, the issues is DEAD.

Now, if the United States jumps to and withdraws from the United Nations unilaterally, as some here apparently want us to do, then sanctions are a distinct possibility.

So...

If the rest of the world couldn't pass sanctions against the United States to protest our invasion of Iraq, what makes you think that they can do so over the issue of how the United States votes?

Now that you understand that the United States has one of the five veto votes, do you understand why all of this handwringing and chicken littling is so absolutely preposterous, and why the TRUE authority is vested in the United States, and not the United Nations?



JBLWATCH.COM

Cool. I've been meaning to get a presence on the web.

Come observe.

You'll discover just how frighteningly boring my family and I really are.

Our lives can stand up to the scrutiny and observation.

Can yours?

 

[Thumper]

Once more, why do you want an external party involved in U.S. elections?

 

[R.H. Lee]

And another thing...

This is just a thinly veiled political ploy on the part of the left. If Bush wins there will be 'reports' of 'abuses' and 'disenfranchisement' that will continue throughout his second term in a continuing effort to undermine the will of the people. If Bush loses, it will set a precedent for even more intrusive 'monitoring' by outside interlopers. It's a win/win for the left.

I'm against it.

 

[flatrock]

1. OSCE "observes" voting process. (See prior post asking what "observing" constitutes.)
2. OSCE decides there are voting problems in Florida (hanging chads), California (unverified e-votes), Chicago (whole cemetaries voting), etc.
3. OSCE decides whole electoral college thingie is outdated and allows for too much variation in voting methods (see #2).
4. OSCE recommends USA scraps electoral college in favor of "consistent fair one-person-one-vote" elections featuring paper, pencil, wooden boxes, and one big counting site.
5. UN decides that world's most powerful nation should adhere to human rights principles (as defined by the UN's consensus of dictators as "one person one vote"), Syria leads successful push for declaring the USA a human-rights violator, and UN imposes sanctions on USA until our chosen voting system is replaced by standard "absentee ballots".

The OSCE has no authority to make a determination on the effectiveness of the electorial college, nor do they have any ability to try and change it, nor do you really have a reason to suspect that they won't like it.

There are countries on the UN human rights pannel that will continue to push for the US to be considered a human rights violater regardless of what we do, because many of those countries are human rights violaters, and they're trying to destroys any means by which the system might be used against them. This has nothing to do with elections observers.

The elections observers will likely find some minor irregularities. SOme are found every year and broadcast over the media for the world to hear. We aren't a closed society. This comission isn't going to find deep, dark secrets that aren't already available from watchdog groups within the US.

That's why it was such a farce that those 13 congressmen were calling for the observers. There's nothing they will find out that others within the country won't find. It was a political stunt to try and hurt Bush, and Bush called them on it.

If you feel the need to be irate about something, be irate at those congressmen who feel the need to slander the US on the international stage for political reasons.

 

[flatrock]

If you really don't care if OSCE is here or not, why do you object to others saying "send 'em home"?

Because I don't think it's productive to get upset and make a big deal about nothing.

Because it makes diplomacy for our administration difficult when we capriciously deny reasonable requests. It's a big world, and we need alies to effectively protect our interests. Let's not give fuel to our opponents over stupid little things.

We have on many occasions insisted that other countries allow observers, who are we to be held above reproach?

We are a soverign nation. The UN or the OSCE cannot force anything on us. All we are doing is permitting their observers to see firsthand rather then getting secondhand reports from watchdog groups in the US.

If you have valid reasons rather than suspisions based on little to no facts, let's hear them. However, arguing about nothing and making decisions based on ignorance and fear isn't productive.

 

[R.H. Lee]

We have on many occasions insisted that other countries allow observers, who are we to be held above reproach?

Go stand in the corner. Making a 'moral equivalence' comparision between the electoral process in the U.S., and some third world country attempting to emerge from a dictatorship won't fly.

 

[Dannyboy]

Oh my goodness gracious, what a bunch of paranoid loonies we have on this here board.

If I see the phrase "UN Observers" one more time I'm gonna . Did only half of you even read the article? Or did you just stop when you saw "UN Observers?" Maybe what we have here is a ginormous case of xenophobia. We can't have no dad gum furriners here observin us while we vote. It just ain't right, I say. It's, like, unconstitutional...or somethin.

And just for the record, no, I don't like it either.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Maybe what we have here is a ginormous case of xenophobia

So to object to foreign 'monitoring' (that's what the article says) of arguably the most valuable and hard won right of Americans is "xenophobic"? Did I make a ginormously wrong turn somewhere and wind up in DU?

 

[Shalako]

Liberals worship the Europeans.

"By us humbly prostrating ourselves and genuflecting to you, the most learned and noble Europeans to come please observe our elections and please give us your esteemed progressively cosmopolitan opinions, may we please be restored in your brilliantly insightful European favor once again...?"


Who cares what they say, they only have as much power as we give them. Besides, I bet our elections are many times better than anything else they would have to_compare_them_to.

 

[gunsmith]

having lived with eurotrash

I can assure you they are an anti semitic anti gun anti U.S bunch of nicompoops.

 

[longeyes]

One more brick in the wall.

The next four years, under President Whoever, should be very, very interesting.

You don't invite kibitzers into your family affairs--unless you have a death wish or another agenda.

One more reason to stay an Independent.

 

[JPL]

"Once more, why do you want an external party involved in U.S. elections?"

Hum...

I'm faced with two choices, and neither one is flattering to you, Thumper.

Either you can't read what I've written, or you simply don't want to read what I've written.

Please go back through my messages and point out to me where I've stated that "I want" an external party involved in US elections.

Since you apparently really haven't read any of my previous messages, though, I'll save you the effort, and tell you that I don't really care one way or the other if they come and WATCH.

You keep attempting to assert that these monitors will be somehow involved in the elections when it's been repeatedly pointed out that other than observation, there's no means for them to become involved.

What I have repeatedly said, though, is that the rampant paranoia that this somehow means immediate US subjegation under UN rule is ludicrous.

 

[JPL]

"This is just a thinly veiled political ploy on the part of the left."

Actually, it's part and parcel to an international treaty that the United States signed 10 years ago.

I did, however, hear on the news this evening that the Republican-controlled Congress has pretty much shut down American participation by stripping out virtually all money out of the last several budgets that would fund activities.

 

[JPL]

"So to object to foreign 'monitoring' (that's what the article says) of arguably the most valuable and hard won right of Americans is "xenophobic"?"

No, to get worked up and claim how the presence of a few observers is going to bring the United States form of democracy crashing to the ground in a matter of minutes is paranoid xenaphobia.

To claim that somehow the United Nations will be able to pass crushing sanctions on the United States because of our electoral college is not only paranoid xenaphobia, but it shows a marked lack of understanding about how the UN operates.

 

[Matt G]

Frankly, if I ran an administration that had won the last election by the skin of its teeth, only to hear a lot of the nation grumbling about a "stolen election," I'd probably invite the "U.N. Observers" in, too! Credibility is all.

Heck, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe the U.N. guys will decry our silly Electoral College loudly enough to stir enough interest that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to abolish it.

(Yes, I realize that our sitting Pres only won because of the E.C. That's fine-- he played by the rules that were extant. Let's change 'em now to "Most Votes Wins.")









--And, yes, for what it's worth, I'd be darned riled up if this was used as an opportunity to attempt to reduce this nation's sovereignty.

 

[LAK]

Don't understand why so many people are perplexed at such things.

-----------------------------
"We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land." - George Bush, to the United Nations General Assembly, November 10, 2001

 

[LAK]

Matt G

Heck, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe the U.N. guys will decry our silly Electoral College loudly enough to stir enough interest that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to abolish it

.... Oh yeah, let's have mob rule. That's real smart

Then let's make it global. Smarter still.

 

[RealGun]

Presidents don't win on popular votes. Get over it. Anyone who thinks the Electoral College or one district/one vote should be abolished did not pay attention to the civics lesson during the last election. Proposing abolition of the EC could only come from a Democrat or one not accepting our republican form of government. Gore lost. Bush is legitimate, no apologies. The tyranny of the majority...oh yeah, that's what we need...let CA, NY, NJ, and Chicago decide. The FF had it all wrong.

The view of European observers without a sense of vastly scattered populations has no bearing on the United States. How does one represent regional concerns without allocated electoral votes? What's better?

Look, it's only a token presence. There isn't much they can or will do to make a difference.

I see some objecting to the principle of the treaty itself. I suggest discussing that separately, starting with looking it up and reading it. If treaties are to mean anything, parties must abide by them. Of course, an isolationist wouldn't care and will argue endlessly.

 

[Daniel T]

Thumper:

If I have to point it out (I noticed you're in Austin, so I probably do) you have the authority to act on that judgement, whether it be by posting it here for influence, or writing it up in the local paper.

Yeah, because I'm from Austin, sure thing. Hey, while we're on the subject, I'd like to note that Eddie Bernice Johnson represents that oh-so-conservative bastion known as Dallas. Huh.

I'd also like to note that the treaty creating the OSCE was signed in 1990. That's right, by Bush the 1st. If the sky is falling, it's been falling for 14 years now. What, you just now looked up, Chicken Little?

How do you expect this outside authority you seem to welcome to administer their judgements? And why?

"You seem to welcome"? Do you think you can read minds? You have no idea what I "welcome". If by "administer their judgement", you mean "write a report", then you'll probably be descibing the extent of the OSCE's influence.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I did, however, hear on the news this evening that the Republican-controlled Congress has pretty much shut down American participation by stripping out virtually all money out of the last several budgets that would fund activities.

So a Democrat controlled Congress could increase funding and the active participation of U.N. meddlers. Apparently it is political. I rest my case.

No, to get worked up and claim how the presence of a few observers is going to bring the United States form of democracy crashing to the ground in a matter of minutes is paranoid xenaphobia.

Hyperbole. I've already shown that it's a politcal maneuver. The left operates incrementally. I opposed to letting the camel's nose into the tent, so to speak.

To claim that somehow the United Nations will be able to pass crushing sanctions on the United States because of our electoral college is not only paranoid xenaphobia, but it shows a marked lack of understanding about how the UN operates.

The U.N.'s primary purpose (other than increasing its own size and power) is to advocate for third world countries. They have absolutely no business overseeing free elections in this country. BTW, thanks for the clinical diagnosis. Don't send me a bill.

 

[JPL]

"Heck, maybe some good will come of it. Maybe the U.N. guys will decry our silly Electoral College loudly enough to stir enough interest that we can get a Constitutional Amendment passed to abolish it."

The Founders chose the electoral college as a means of ensuring that the large, populous states, didn't overwhelm the smaller states.

It was the same concerns that led to the bicameral Congress that we have today -- the House based on representation by population, the Senate based on equal power of the states, each with two votes.

Initial plans called for a unicameral legislature where representation was by population only.

Obviously, the large states at the time, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York, supported that.

The small states threatened to withdraw from the Constitutional Convention unless that plan was changed.

The "Great Compromise" of July 16, 1787, established the Senate, pacified the fears of the smaller states that they would be overwhelmed, and helped give us the Constitution as it exists today.

The Electoral College is rarely viewed as such, but it really is part of the system of checks and balances that exists in the US government.

 

[JPL]

"Hyperbole."

Yes, you're right.

There's been a significant amount of hyperbole in this thread, and the vast majority of it has involved the same kind of panicked breathlessness that many here accuse the Democrats of using when talking about firearms.

"I've already shown that it's a politcal maneuver."

Gee, do you think it might be a political maneuver because POLITICIANS are involved?

When a politican is involved, it's ALWAYS a political maneuver.

"The left operates incrementally."

Excuse me, but so does the right.

You've still failed to explain, however, just how this constitutes a threat to our electoral process.


"The U.N.'s primary purpose (other than increasing its own size and power) is to advocate for third world countries."

I suppose that's why the only 5 veto votes are held by some of the world's largest, wealthiest, and most populous nations -- the United States, China, France, Great Britain, Russia (a far step away from what it was as the Soviet Union, but still very, very powerful).


"They have absolutely no business overseeing free elections in this country."

You still don't quite understand, do you?

THIS IS NOT AN ACTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS!"

THE UNITED NATIONS REFUSED TO SEND ELECTION MONITORS!

Are you really in such a blind, quivering panic that you missed that fact in the initial article?

Here, please TRY to read this, which is pulled directly from the article that set of this tin foil storm.

Please?

And pay special attention to the bolded paragraph.

"Previously, the 13 Democratic congressmen, led by Johnson, sent a letter July 8 to the U.N. general secretary requesting the presence of U.N. representatives in every county of the country during the voting process and any vote recount afterwards.

The U.N. immediately responded that such a request could not be accepted unless it came from the U.S. government. Otherwise, a spokesman said, it could be considered"intervention in a country's sovereignty."