International observers say states out of line

[Agent11]

I don't think most states would welcome washington telling them how to do their elections, in fact I don't know if congress can legislate that tbh.

 

[Abraxas]

Gosh, maybe Barack "the most transparent government ever" Obama will pass those laws!

LMAO, you tool.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/11/the_tmi_presidency.html

Is it common amongst ignorant partisan fucknuts such as yourself to assign random positions to people you quote that have little to nothing to do with what they actually said and then insult them for having this position or are you just a special kind of stupid?

 

[Siddhartha]

It would have been nice to have had independent observers in Florida during the 2000 election night. Also, I wonder what independent observers would report on Tea Party et al efforts to police polling locations.

 

[werepossum]

All they do is look even if flagrant cheating is going on. After going back, they will put out a statement saying whether the election was held in a free and fair manner.

It's worth mentioning that Jimmy Carter and company certified South American elections as free and fair, but later admitted they knew the elections were stolen. The justification Carter gave was that it was important that people had faith in democracy. Evidently this faith in democracy was even more important than actually having democracy. What's to stop them from claiming that our election was stolen if they think it's more important to get the result they want than to have fair elections?

It's also worth pointing out that assuming B. Hussein Obama wins re-election, and assuming the Democrats hold the Senate, and assuming that Reid and Obama can twist arms and buy votes as they did with Obamacare, and assuming that Reid is wiling to invoke the nuclear option and abolish the filibuster (as so many here have called for), then B. Hussein Obama could in fact sign a treaty giving the UN dominion over US elections, as well as the UN gun control treaty, control over our seas, even the ability to directly tax Americans. These things would then be the law of the land.

Perhaps instead of asking "What harm do they do?" we should be asking "What good are they?"

 

[Agent11]

There is no way any of what you just posted will ever happen. That is the Republican fear machine talking. No Democrat President or Senate would ever do that.

 

[Double Trouble]

It would have been nice to have had independent observers in Florida during the 2000 election night. Also, I wonder what independent observers would report on Tea Party et al efforts to police polling locations.

No, I don't think it would have been nice at all. At best, it would have no caused additional problems.

Who says you have to trust them MORE, or instead of? Having people without a partisan interest in the outcome of the election in addition to our partisan election officials certainly doesn't sound like it would hurt the process.

You're assuming they are not partisan and wouldn't have a rooting interest in the outcome. That's definitely not always going to be the case.

And even if we believe the way we run elections to be an unquestionable paragon of virtue (and you could certainly argue that it isn't in all cases), this seems like one of those cases where setting a good example is worth something on the international stage. As far as I can tell, we're not giving observers any authority aside from the right to observe...how much does this REALLY cost us?

Observers are there to verify a fair election in places where the legitimacy of elections is truly in doubt. That's not the case in the US, and adding outside observers doesn't add value in that sense. I think whatever the value of setting an example, it doesn't add up to more than the value of respecting the rights of states to set their own voting processes and rules that apply to everyone equally.

 

[HomerJS]

It doesn't matter "if" they signed shit. The US is represented by the Federal Gov't which does not have jurisdiction over elections so even "if" they signed it, it would be meaningless. It simply doesn't matter. Now if Texas had seeked them out and signed some shit and changed their laws to allow it, then there could be some outrage. The only outrage we should be having right now is over the Federal Gov't overstepping their bounds and signing such stupid shit. They had no right to and no place to do it. IMO it just shows again how corrupt and above the Constitution the major parties believe they are. They've stolen our Government and do whatever they feel like and interpret word however they feel best suits their situation.

I don't know why people are getting their thongs in a bunch just because a group just wants to "observe". What are you afraid of them "observing"?

 

[Jhhnn]

Y'all skeered of a few UN election observers? Why?

I think we should welcome them, show off just how free & fair our process really is. After all, we want every eligible citizen to vote & every vote to be counted, don't we? Don't we?

 

[Jaskalas]

Why block impartial observers? That is shady in and of itself.

Impartial? Who the !@#$ is that?

Take a world poll, it'd be a momentous landslide.

 

[yllus]

You Americans seem a bit touchy for no good reason on this. Yeah, your federal government may have overstepped itself by inviting these observers. But the basic principle is a good one: We all want to foster transparency and accountability in the democratic process, even if our process is obviously already pretty sound.

 

[Blackjack200]

Gosh, maybe Barack "the most transparent government ever" Obama will pass those laws!

LMAO, you tool.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/11/the_tmi_presidency.html

wow, you are really fucking unhinged.

I love how all the people wailing in this thread about having election observers are the same ones insisting on voter IDs.

...because it's not about fair elections, it's about making sure that fewer minorities and poor people vote.

 

[waggy]

You Americans seem a bit touchy for no good reason on this. Yeah, your federal government may have overstepped itself by inviting these observers. But the basic principle is a good one: We all want to foster transparency and accountability in the democratic process, even if our process is obviously already pretty sound.

true. but state law is still state law and must be fallowed.

that is my only issue. if the UN wants to stand around in the a building and watch fuck em have fun.

I do t hink observers should be allowed. They need to re-write the law to allow them.

of course they need to stay off to the side. not try to influence anyone, not to to harasser anyone and if they do they need to be arrested and shipped back.

 

[Blackjack200]

of course they need to stay off to the side. not try to influence anyone, not to to harasser anyone and if they do they need to be arrested and shipped back.

Has this ever happened?

http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/index.html

Has anyone from the Carter Center ever been accused of this?

 

[waggy]

Has this ever happened?

http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/index.html

Has anyone from the Carter Center ever been accused of this?

right the odds are well zero that it would happen.

but then we are back to the main problem. state law is still the law. I do think all states should have a allowance for election observers.

until then they need to fallow the law. i won't condemn them for it i do think it needs a tweak though.

 

[yllus]

Has this ever happened?

http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/index.html

Has anyone from the Carter Center ever been accused of this?

I sort of like the idea of a French observer leaning over to someone about to vote and saying, "MON AMI ARE YOU ZURE YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR ZE REPUBLIKANS?"

 

[surfsatwerk]

Maybe they should put up threatening billboards and observe from there?

 

[dank69]

States have jurisdiction to not allow the observers where they need to be and the observers have the jurisdiction to call out the states that don't allow them to do their job. Rage on, bro.

Any state that doesn't amend their laws to provide for IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS just looks bad. It is your state's right to look bad.

 

[Nintendesert]

Just follow the rule of law. If you don't like the law have the law changed. You can't make decisions based on what you feel is right.

 

[zinfamous]

It's worth mentioning that Jimmy Carter and company certified South American elections as free and fair, but later admitted they knew the elections were stolen. The justification Carter gave was that it was important that people had faith in democracy. Evidently this faith in democracy was even more important than actually having democracy. What's to stop them from claiming that our election was stolen if they think it's more important to get the result they want than to have fair elections?

It's also worth pointing out that assuming B. Hussein Obama wins re-election, and assuming the Democrats hold the Senate, and assuming that Reid and Obama can twist arms and buy votes as they did with Obamacare, and assuming that Reid is wiling to invoke the nuclear option and abolish the filibuster (as so many here have called for), then B. Hussein Obama could in fact sign a treaty giving the UN dominion over US elections, as well as the UN gun control treaty, control over our seas, even the ability to directly tax Americans. These things would then be the law of the land.

Perhaps instead of asking "What harm do they do?" we should be asking "What good are they?"

.....


is this what keeps you up at night?

 

[hal2kilo]

You mean like Black Panthers ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A

Never fails to disappoint.

 

[hal2kilo]

Y'all skeered of a few UN election observers? Why?

I think we should welcome them, show off just how free & fair our process really is. After all, we want every eligible citizen to vote & every vote to be counted, don't we? Don't we?

You're funny.

 

[CPA]

wow, you are really fucking unhinged.

I love how all the people wailing in this thread about having election observers are the same ones insisting on voter IDs.

...because it's not about fair elections, it's about making sure that fewer minorities and poor people vote.

I love how people can't make a distinction between states ensuring that their voting laws are upheld and voting is done by eligible voters, and foreign "observers" who have no dog in this fight.

 

[piasabird]

Does not matter what the federal govt agreed to. I did not vote on it. Did congress vote on it? For presidential Elections the individual states run their own voting how they decide. This is guarateed under the Electorial College Process. This is why states usually vote all their electorial votes based on majority of voting precincts. Winner takes all is what most states want. I dont really agree with it, but it is up to the individual state.

 

[cirrrocco]

Its strange if the US thinks that its all right to send international observers (of which it has plenty) to other countries but not to its own. So the US champions the right of UN observers and send observers under the UN banner but inexplicably blocks such observations at home.

You made the most sense in this thread and look at the other idiots that totally skipped this point. who the fuck is hillary clinton to talk about russian elections. similary US sending observers to a bunch of countries . where is the outrage there. one rule for everyone else and one rule for AMERICAAAAAA..