Posted on 10/07/2004 3:09:11 AM PDT by kattracks
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. 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."
[snip]
The report said touch-screen machines that don't print paper ballots for use during a possible recount could delay the election outcome beyond Nov. 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.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
The beginning of the end, if you ask me. The camel's nose is firmly in the tent.
Agreed. Amazing that we were able to have elections without this outside help until the Democrats became the minority party.
The Free and Transparently Elected candidate is usually the incumbent, who recieves 95% of the votes..
All this under the aegis of the United Nations, who diligently supervises those elections..
Nuts..
100% correct! While we have a former President basically committing treason by working to have our elections in foreign hands, his party is actively undermining public confidence in the process by simultaneously committing voter fraud in registrations, fanning the fires of black and minority disenfranchisement with lying public pronouncements and ads, and sending goons around the country to wreak physical damage on Republican offices. Hitler would be proud.
There is so much ramped voter fraud going on with this election if we don't do something to get this election under control our own lack of action could very easily lose this election for us. Do we want them to steal it right out from under our noses? I am not sure that getting someone to monitor this election will do any good. We may need to recognize though that we need impartial moderators. The problem is they most likely won't be impartial and they will not be enough of an effort to make any real difference. We cannot count on them so we must enlist legions of patrols to check the thousands and thousands of newly registered voters in many key areas in this country. We must act very quickly and deal with it thoughourly. The President may want outside witnesses as to what is going on in this country because the Dems are going to scream that we are the ones who are cheating. It is not pretty! It is like dealing with Hitler.
This is all proposterous, and I am blown away that these people have the gall to even try it.
These people are socialists through and through. Most people do not understand that fact. A socialist does not understand the concept of a "democracy" in the same way we do. For us, as Americans, the whole purpose of the democratic system we have in our Republic is to reaffirm the fact that government is formed by the people for the sake of doing the will of the people. We choose our representatives and we choose our leaders. The government is built by us and exists solely at our pleasure.
Americans realize that fact in ways that are foreign to outsiders. We were the first in the modern world to base the way our system worked on that fact. Throughout the rest of the world, government exists and then there are the people. People living in other "democracies" believe they are somehow "lucky" to be able to vote and have a voice in their government, as if it would somehow still be legitimate if they didn't have that "priviledge". I think at times that we are the only nation in the world that realizes that voting is a right.
To a socialist, democracy is socialism. It is less about the right of the people to determine the way they are governed and more about mystically divining the vague "will of the people" which, incidiently, happens to be the socialist agenda. When socialism is not advanced, these people will scream how democracy is being denied and suppressed. When socialists triumph, even through underhanded means, "democracy prevails".
There is no such thing as "internationally accepted democracy". The will of the people of a nation is not an international thing. Socialism, on the other hand, is internationalist. When we hear of "international standards" in democracy, we must beware. The only thing that truly matters is that the people of a nation are able to determine those who represent them in their government.
The thin edge of the wedge!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.