International observers say states out of line

[Farang]

They would be breaking the law. THAT is what they'd be doing.
If we let those fools in, who else would we have to let in? The law is quite clear in Iowa, Texas, and I'm sure in other states as well.

Can you explain why having outside observers is bad? I understand the state has a right to keep them out, and the federal government has no power to enforce whatever treaties there are. But what's the negative effect? To me it seems positive that we have such a strong election system, sure come on in and take a look. Shouldn't we be a model for the world?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Can you explain why having outside observers is bad? I understand the state has a right to keep them out, and the federal government has no power to enforce whatever treaties there are. But what's the negative effect? To me it seems positive that we have such a strong election system, sure come on in and take a look. Shouldn't we be a model for the world?

I have no problem with it from that stand point. However, they must play by our rules. So if they want to attempt to break state laws then I hope we have AGs and SoS's that have a backbone and care about the rule of law.

 

[Farang]

I have no problem with it from that stand point. However, they must play by our rules. So if they want to attempt to break state laws then I hope we have AGs and SoS's that have a backbone and care about the rule of law.

In that case I don't really see the issue. The OSCE said they will comply with the law, but are upset the U.S. is not standing by its treaty obligations. It's not OSCE's fault that the U.S. federal government agreed to things it can't enforce.

I take issue with states having these laws to begin with. Seems like chest thumping that does more harm than good.

 

[bfdd]

In that case I don't really see the issue. The OSCE said they will comply with the law, but are upset the U.S. is not standing by its treaty obligations. It's not OSCE's fault that the U.S. federal government agreed to things it can't enforce.

No it's the US Federal Govt's fault. We should be outraged at them for signing on to such non-sense and over stepping their own jurisdiction. IMO whoever signed on to it should be brought up on charges of fraud. Yes fraud as they misrepresented themselves. OSCE should file suit against the US Fed Govt

 

[CADsortaGUY]

In that case I don't really see the issue. The OSCE said they will comply with the law, but are upset the U.S. is not standing by its treaty obligations. It's not OSCE's fault that the U.S. federal government agreed to things it can't enforce.

I take issue with states having these laws to begin with. Seems like chest thumping that does more harm than good.

The law is there to protect the process. If you let some people in... "just to watch" who gets to say who is allowed and not allowed? Where or who gets to draw the line.

 

[umbrella39]

Riddle me this: What do you have when you have a poster posting an outrage thread and nobody comes?



Answer: A Guy that's sort of a cad....

Well it's nice that cad can take time away from the off site forum to come spread some fauxrage once in a while. Say hi to the permabans...

 

[Farang]

The law is there to protect the process. If you let some people in... "just to watch" who gets to say who is allowed and not allowed? Where or who gets to draw the line.

The state draws the line.. with OSCE observers being allowed in, for the good of our international reputation. Any other nonessential personnel are not allowed in.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well it's nice that cad can take time away from the off site forum to come spread some fauxrage once in a while. Say hi to the permabans...

? off site forum? hell, I'm too busy to post here most of the time so I sure as heck don't have time for some other forum.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The state draws the line.. with OSCE observers being allowed in, for the good of our international reputation. Any other nonessential personnel are not allowed in.

Sorry, it's not the state's responsibility to bail out the Feds for overstepping. If you allow one agency in, others will follow. It's just a bad idea all around. We have rules in place right now - we need to enforce them as is.

 

[Farang]

Sorry, it's not the state's responsibility to bail out the Feds for overstepping. If you allow one agency in, others will follow. It's just a bad idea all around. We have rules in place right now - we need to enforce them as is.

Well we just disagree. I don't see it as bailing out, I see it as good policy all around. The feds represent the state internationally, the states control the election, so for this piece of good policy they need to work together to let to OSCE in. Others don't have to follow if you don't let them--I don't really see where that road leads or why it matters

 

[Juror No. 8]

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

How do you know they are impartial?

 

[bononos]

I know you guys want to make this into a "secret euro commies infiltrating our election" sorta story, but let's settle down a bit...

What, exactly, are these observers doing?

Are they influencing the elections in these states? Are they providing, you know--observations and suggestions? Are they actually flexing power over how these states should run their elections?


Kind of important....

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.

 

[Rainsford]

Sorry, it's not the state's responsibility to bail out the Feds for overstepping. If you allow one agency in, others will follow. It's just a bad idea all around. We have rules in place right now - we need to enforce them as is.

I'm not sure I quite follow why we can't possibly consider changing our rules to have reasonable exceptions. The slippery slope fallacy is called that for a reason, allowing one exception doesn't require any others if the reason for that exception doesn't apply to others.

Given the frequent accusations on both sides about election fraud, I wouldn't think non-US election observers would be that controversial an idea aside from a reflexive dislike of ANY foreign influence.

 

[monovillage]

Can you explain why having outside observers is bad? I understand the state has a right to keep them out, and the federal government has no power to enforce whatever treaties there are. But what's the negative effect? To me it seems positive that we have such a strong election system, sure come on in and take a look. Shouldn't we be a model for the world?

Hey, can I come over to your house and "observe"? Just kinda hang around and make sure you're doing things right? No negative effect, i'll just watch. Maybe write a report or something. If you have nothing to hide it should be OK. Amirite?

 

[buckshot24]

I think these states are wrong and should let observers do their jobs.

I have not seen anyone establish the harm they may cause, it seems to me to be more posturing of not wanting foreigners watching over our elections.

Is that the standard? "I don't see any harm" therefore they can break the law.

 

[lotus503]

Lol all this bickering and outrage.

Noone is pissed close to two billion will be spent in propagandizing, false values and lies from both sides.

Our system is compromised and folks want to bicker nuance of observers.

 

[Farang]

Hey, can I come over to your house and "observe"? Just kinda hang around and make sure you're doing things right? No negative effect, i'll just watch. Maybe write a report or something. If you have nothing to hide it should be OK. Amirite?

Your analogy would stand had I asked to inspect your house in exchange for financial and military support, or supported our HOA's policy of inspecting one another's houses. In fact you'd also have to to take it a step further and say there was evidence of nefarious activity in our neighborhood that we at the HOA wanted to get rid of, so we all agreed to inspect on another's houses. Now you come over and my wife says you can't come in. But I'm still as much a champion as ever of inspecting YOUR house.

But sorry, not mine. Wife says so. Get out or I'm calling the cops. I'll come over at 1pm for your inspection? Great

 

[Double Trouble]

What, exactly, are these observers doing?

Are they influencing the elections in these states? Are they providing, you know--observations and suggestions? Are they actually flexing power over how these states should run their elections?

Kind of important....

Actually no, not important at all. It doesn't really matter what they're doing, they have to obey the state laws.

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.

Who the hell needs them to issue such a statement?

I'm not sure I quite follow why we can't possibly consider changing our rules to have reasonable exceptions. The slippery slope fallacy is called that for a reason, allowing one exception doesn't require any others if the reason for that exception doesn't apply to others.

I've seen no reason to change any rules for this, and absent good reason to change the rules they should be left alone.

Given the frequent accusations on both sides about election fraud, I wouldn't think non-US election observers would be that controversial an idea aside from a reflexive dislike of ANY foreign influence.

I don't trust any foreign observers to make a determination of fairness any more than I do our own government, so they are completely useless in the process. Not only is any foreign observation not desirable, it would further erode states rights and make it appear that the federal government has some control over the voting process in the states.

Good to see the AG's take their responsibility to uphold the law seriously. There is no reason to allow these clowns access that the rest of the citizens don't have (ie, access to the polling station if they are not voting there).

 

[Greenman]

Well it's nice that cad can take time away from the off site forum to come spread some fauxrage once in a while. Say hi to the permabans...

There are tens of thousands of "off site forums". If you're speaking of the place where high crimes and misdemeanors are planed, you need to be more specific.

 

[Rainsford]

...
I don't trust any foreign observers to make a determination of fairness any more than I do our own government, so they are completely useless in the process. Not only is any foreign observation not desirable, it would further erode states rights and make it appear that the federal government has some control over the voting process in the states.

Good to see the AG's take their responsibility to uphold the law seriously. There is no reason to allow these clowns access that the rest of the citizens don't have (ie, access to the polling station if they are not voting there).

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. 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?

 

[Bateluer]

Glad to see my state, Arizona, told them to get lost. European observers have no jurisdiction or business whatsoever in US elections.

 

[zinfamous]

Actually no, not important at all. It doesn't really matter what they're doing, they have to obey the state laws.

so what laws have/are they breaking? The comments form this group, in the posted article, state that their intention is to fully comply with state laws, and it seems that they have responded in kind.

and again, that has nothing to do with what I said: some people seem to think that they are there to control--to exert influence over how an election is run.

that is so pathetically misguided I don't even know where to begin...

 

[Abraxas]

For all those talking about them breaking the law, there is always the option of passing laws that lend themselves to transparent elections; just a thought.

 

[zinfamous]

Glad to see my state, Arizona, told them to get lost. European observers have no jurisdiction or business whatsoever in US elections.

OMG the Commies! THE COMMIES! RUUUUUUUNNNNNN....


D:

World police: yes; just stay the fuck off our rock, amiright?

 

[monovillage]

For all those talking about them breaking the law, there is always the option of passing laws that lend themselves to transparent elections; just a thought.

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

During a presidential campaign, there's no such thing as over-sharing. Barack Obama promised to run the most transparent White House in history—disclosing donations, shunning lobbyists, and broadcasting important meetings on C-SPAN. ............