Poll: Should the US government interfere in other democracies' elections?

[Craig234]

The US has laws against foreign involvement in its elections. Foreign citizens are outlawed from donaitng to any presidential campaign, for exmaple. The election is kept 'in-house'.

But the same reasons other governments would want to interfere in US elections are why the US government wants to interfere in other nations' elections.

Doing so might put a pro-US regime in power - but presumably, or the interference wouldn't be needed, possibly at the price of the other nation's democracy being thwarted.

Those people then live, in effect, under a foreign agent, and not the leader they chose. It's a form of imperialism, in principle.

It can come about in a variety of ways, mostly covert - helping the desired political party organize, providing stealth funding, paying for journalists, etc.

The poll: should the US interfere in any foreign democracies overtly or covertly, and violate the demands we make for our own democracy?

No one should be surprised to see that my answer is 'no', foremost for the 'moral reasons' of supporting the right to self-determination, but perhaps also over unintended effects.

 

[Excelsior]

No.

 

[maddogchen]

I would say yes if say Country A is holding a democratic election but Country B is covertly trying to influence the election for B's gain. Then if the US goes in and covertly tries to counter Country B but therefore affects the elections then I would say its somewhat justified. Sorta get my meaning?

 

[sandorski]

Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I would say yes if say Country A is holding a democratic election but Country B is covertly trying to influence the election for B's gain. Then if the US goes in and covertly tries to counter Country B but therefore affects the elections then I would say its somewhat justified. Sorta get my meaning?

That's been our justification in the past. In some cases it has led to some pretty despicable actions on our part.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I would say yes if say Country A is holding a democratic election but Country B is covertly trying to influence the election for B's gain. Then if the US goes in and covertly tries to counter Country B but therefore affects the elections then I would say its somewhat justified. Sorta get my meaning?

That's been our justification in the past. In some cases it has led to some pretty despicable actions on our part.

The worst example being Operation Ajax which, arguably, eventually lead to the Iranian revolution. And there is a school of thought which points to this action leading to the rise of modern middle eastern terrorism.

 

[techs]

Well, it is perfectly legal for citizens of other countries to form corporations in America and donate to political candidates. Isn't that interfering?


from wiki:

"In 1995, Murdoch's Fox Network became the object of scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when it was alleged that News Ltd.'s Australian base made Murdoch's ownership of Fox illegal. The FCC, however, ruled in Murdoch's favor, stating that his ownership of Fox was in the public's best interests"

and

there are alleged reports that Murdoch has acquired Turkish citizenship to overcome the current obligations against capital sales to foreigners

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

You almost had it. Why is it our job to be election judges for a sovereign nation? I don't want another country sticking their nose in our business, so we shouldn't be sticking our nose in theirs.

The Golden Rule wins again.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

You almost had it. Why is it our job to be election judges for a sovereign nation? I don't want another country sticking their nose in our business, so we shouldn't be sticking our nose in theirs.

The Golden Rule wins again.

Because we have a moral obligation to protect democracy

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

You almost had it. Why is it our job to be election judges for a sovereign nation? I don't want another country sticking their nose in our business, so we shouldn't be sticking our nose in theirs.

The Golden Rule wins again.

Because we have a moral obligation to protect democracy

Says who? Was there some kind of international convention I'm unaware of where the United States was appointed to be the protectors of democracy?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The poll: should the US interfere in any foreign democracies overtly or covertly, and violate the demands we make for our own democracy?

No one should be surprised to see that my answer is 'no', foremost for the 'moral reasons' of supporting the right to self-determination, but perhaps also over unintended effects.

What's wrong here is that you provide no example that we have interfered with a democratic election. Maybe there?s a boogyman here that does not exist.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
The poll: should the US interfere in any foreign democracies overtly or covertly, and violate the demands we make for our own democracy?

No one should be surprised to see that my answer is 'no', foremost for the 'moral reasons' of supporting the right to self-determination, but perhaps also over unintended effects.

What's wrong here is that you provide no example that we have interfered with a democratic election. Maybe there?s a boogyman here that does not exist.

See my post above.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
The poll: should the US interfere in any foreign democracies overtly or covertly, and violate the demands we make for our own democracy?

No one should be surprised to see that my answer is 'no', foremost for the 'moral reasons' of supporting the right to self-determination, but perhaps also over unintended effects.

What's wrong here is that you provide no example that we have interfered with a democratic election. Maybe there?s a boogyman here that does not exist.

See my post above.

So Eisenhower did it to Iran at British request. I suppose a 55 year old action is worthy of a poll. Which case I clearly vote no.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I would say yes if say Country A is holding a democratic election but Country B is covertly trying to influence the election for B's gain. Then if the US goes in and covertly tries to counter Country B but therefore affects the elections then I would say its somewhat justified. Sorta get my meaning?

That's been our justification in the past. In some cases it has led to some pretty despicable actions on our part.

The worst example being Operation Ajax which, arguably, eventually lead to the Iranian revolution. And there is a school of thought which points to this action leading to the rise of modern middle eastern terrorism.

in this situation who is country B that we are countering? It seems like we are helping Country B which is the UK.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

You almost had it. Why is it our job to be election judges for a sovereign nation? I don't want another country sticking their nose in our business, so we shouldn't be sticking our nose in theirs.

The Golden Rule wins again.

Because we have a moral obligation to protect democracy

Says who? Was there some kind of international convention I'm unaware of where the United States was appointed to be the protectors of democracy?

I said a moral obligation, not legal.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

You almost had it. Why is it our job to be election judges for a sovereign nation? I don't want another country sticking their nose in our business, so we shouldn't be sticking our nose in theirs.

The Golden Rule wins again.

Because we have a moral obligation to protect democracy

Says who? Was there some kind of international convention I'm unaware of where the United States was appointed to be the protectors of democracy?

I said a moral obligation, not legal.

Either way, you're still wrong.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Craig234
The poll: should the US interfere in any foreign democracies overtly or covertly, and violate the demands we make for our own democracy?

No one should be surprised to see that my answer is 'no', foremost for the 'moral reasons' of supporting the right to self-determination, but perhaps also over unintended effects.

What's wrong here is that you provide no example that we have interfered with a democratic election. Maybe there?s a boogyman here that does not exist.

See my post above.

So Eisenhower did it to Iran at British request. I suppose a 55 year old action is worthy of a poll. Which case I clearly vote no.

Would you like a list of say, 40+? Perhaps not all in democracies, but all interference in sovereign nations by the US. While some of these are seen as military involvements, and not government/electoral involvement, it is lunacy to believe that they weren't done in concert.

Hawaii 1873
Native Americans ongoing
Korea mid 1800s and again 1940s-50s
Japan mid to late 1800s
China late 1800s and again '40s-70s known, earlier and more recent expected
Philippines early 1900s and again in the '80s
Indonesia 1965
Timor last quarter of the 20th century
Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia '60s-'70s
Bangladesh 1971
Afghanistan '80s
Iran '50s-present
Iraq '70s-present
Lebanon '50s-80s
Greece '40s-80s
Italy '40s-80s
Libya '80s
Ghana '60s
Sudan '90s
Somalia '70s-present
Congo '60s
Angola '70s
South Africa '60s-80s
Mexico intermittent 1800s-present
Guatemala '50s
El Salvador '80s-90s
Nicaragua 1800s-present
Honduras '80s-90s
Panama 1800s-present
Cuba '50s-present
Jamaica '70s-80s
Haiti most of the 20th century
Dominican Republic 1900-1970
Puerto Rico 40s-present
Grenada '80s
Venezuela 2002
Colombia at least since 1960-present, possibly earlier
Brazil '60s
Boliva '60s
Chile 1890s-1980s
Paraguay '60s-70s
Uruguay '60-70s
Argentina '70s

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
Never. Monitor and Report irregularities? Yes.

You almost had it. Why is it our job to be election judges for a sovereign nation? I don't want another country sticking their nose in our business, so we shouldn't be sticking our nose in theirs.

The Golden Rule wins again.

It keeps everyone more honest. Having someone observe your Elections is not meddling, nor does it impose upon the process in some negative fashion.

 

[Craig234]

I'm pleased to see the large majority of 'no' votes. I notice the 9 'yes' votes did not post defending their position.

Maddogchen, yes, your scenario makes sense, but I've never heard of it actually happening - it's always simply about influencing the election, period.

'Countering' would be an excuse or cover, and could hardly exactly counter another nation.

PrinceofWands, thanks for posting the partial list. I'd question Cuba under Castro being on it, but anyone who gets informed on US history with the CIA knows this is common.

 

[HaiBiss]

Um why start changing the course after 100's of year screwing with countries democracy has always worked for us in the past....

(shorter list but wanted to get the point across)
CUBA ok bad example
PANAMA some good some bad
IRAN good point
IRAQ um jury still out
AFGAN same as Iran
HAWAII oh wait we just conquered them, needed a good vacation spot.
KOREA still a stale mate
VIETNAM I don't go there
CAMBODIA did anyone win
LIBERA still in shambles
PAKISTAN Musharraf do I need to say more
ISRAEL don't want to go there but trouble
PHILIPPINES kind of a winner only half the country wants us dead


Come on people we are Americans we were created on the belief that we were better than everyone else.


Please if you are teenager realize that my sarcasm is lost on you