From Fox News
Election monitors that normally would be expected to observe elections in fledgling democracies like Azerbaijan and Moldova are scheduled to watch the vote in a more established democratic nation — the United States.
Responding to a request from 13 Democratic congressmen and the State Department, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (search) will be sending a group to make sure the United States holds a fair election in November.
Lawmakers who requested the OSCE presence said problems in the 2000 election spurred them to ask the international organization to participate. They say that the monitors will help ensure that the United States should have nothing to hide, but the observers will be there to make sure the election does not suffer any civil rights violations or other irregularities.
Rep. Barbara Lee “felt that given the sort of problems that occurred in the 2000 election that it would be important that there be election monitors on hand for this election,” said Stuart Chapman, a spokesman for the California Democrat.
But critics say that inviting an international organization is not only insulting to the world’s strongest democracy, but it also puts U.S. sovereignty at risk.
“A lot of Americans are naturally going to be insulted by the idea that there is something wrong with our democratic process and that we need these bureaucrats from abroad,” said Jeff Deist, spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.
On June 30, Lee and her colleagues requested that the United Nations send monitors, but the international body rejected the request because the letter was not signed by an administration official. In early July, the group wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell requesting monitors to guarantee fair elections. The State Department then sent a request for election monitors to the OSCE. On July 30, the State Department confirmed that OSCE observers would monitor the Nov. 2 election.
I can’t say what it is about this story that irks me most—that 13 Democratic congressmen have so little faith in the ability of American election officials to monitor internal elections, or that Colin Powell appears to agree with them.
[…] Having these observers in America for the election undermines the nation’s sovereignty, Deist said.
“Whether they give the stamp of approval or not to monitor these elections ought not to be the concern. We are a sovereign country. We conduct our own elections,” Deist said. “Implicit in [sending observers] is you are a nation that is backwards or incapable. We, as the international babysitter, need to come in and make sure that” you are doing things properly. “That’s not going to fly very well with the American people.”
Thomas Kilgannon, president of the Freedom Alliance (search), an organization that states one of its goals as defending American sovereignty, agreed with Deist’s analysis.
“The United States does democracy better than anyone in the world, and we don’t need anyone outside our country judging our elections and telling us what’s right,” Kilgannon said.
Kilgannon said he worried that inviting the observers would set a bad precedent, allowing international organizations to have a role in judging America’s elections rather than leaving that responsibility up to American officials. Supervising elections has traditionally been a state responsibility.
If a problem does occur, some may look to international institutions to solve it, rather than relying on domestic safeguards already in place, he said.
“What they are saying is they have more faith and trust in international observers and institutions than they trust their fellow Americans. It is a sad commentary on their beliefs as members of the House of Representatives,” Kilgannon said.
As Democratic members of the House of Representatives. 13 Democrats, specifically. Just to be clear.
…And yet roughly 50% of voters will cast their November ballots for John Kerry, the plaster-haired effete heading a party that loves America so much that it seeks to protect it…by ceding sovereignty to pampered, unelected foreign bureaucrats.
Somewhere, Ben Franklin just took one last celestial bong hit and stuck his head in a pot bellied stove.
Says it all…by ceding sovereignty to pampered, unelected foreign bureaucrats.
It’s not any different than the “big lie” that is repeated so often it’s believed to be the truth. Or the nose of the camel onder the tent. (Warning: metaphor alert)
People will, unwitingly, assume the “monitors” are here for a reason, and then, so will the monitors. Otherwise, why are they here? There must be a reason!
The best part about the whole fiasco in Florida in 2000 was that all the problem counties had Election Commissioners (or whatever their titles were) that were Democrats! But the Republicans stole the election! Go figure–the Republicans are that good.
If this election is anything less than a historic blowout for a Bush win, I see the Democratic party base going underground as an insurgency.
A few days back I had a spirited discussion with Mrs. Tmj and one of our friends about whether or not the Dems were laying the groundwork for a systematic court challenge to the electoral system itself. We disagreed then. Right after Kerry’s “make it stop” moment we were right on the same page.
c’mon. this is the group that wants to put the fun in dysfunctional. being socialists, everyone needs a nanny, and some of us are cut out to be nannies, while most of us are not. so let’s get more nannies – cute, French or Peruvian nannies – to help.
tmj, if I were not so tired and in need of getting on with the rest of my life, I’d try to dig up the reputable link (Dodd Harris, I think) that noted Kerry’s mobilization a month ago of 600 lawyers to prepare for challenges on election day. I don’t think it’s because he is worried about winning.
I think Franklin would take a long look at the top four and think to himself: “Well, that’s one republic that hasn’t been fucking kept.”
Perhaps. But the celestial bong hit. That’s what’s important.
I’m praying that they send monitors to my polling place. I would be honored to drag the sumbitch out of the polling place by his collar, and then stomp a mudhole in him and walk it dry.
I might even come back with my shotgun and stand guard. It would make great television, and I probably wouldn’t be the only one.
What is the fuss?? Didn’t you know they were coming anyway??
Gee, how much do you want to bet that, if Bush wins, these “obsevers” will find “irregularities” in a couple of key states? Won’t change the results of the election, of course, but it’ll allow the left to keep using all their clever “Commander in Thief” insults.
Yay, fun for all.
me in line to vote:…
OSCE Observer: Boy, that George Bush sure is a stupid cowboy huh….
me in line to vote:…
OSCE Observer: I mean, lied about WMD’s and such….just ask Blix….
me in line to vote:…
OSCE Observer: Hell, the only reason we’re here is because he cheated last time…what a stupid cowboy….
me in line to vote:…
OSCE Observer: So, I here you guys are leaving Europe. Well, good riddance, I say….
me in line to vote:…
OSCE Observer: So let me ask you one last thing- being an ethnic minority, are you disenfranchised with democracy yet? Because Europe is in serious need of some middle class peasantry. Three month paid vacations dontchya know.
me in line to vote:….
OSCE Observer:…just think of how much more self-affirmation you would have were you to go back to being our peasants….
me in line to vote:….look, I don’t mean to be a pest, but put some pants on for godsakes. This isn’t the Riviera…
Your pantless European just ruined my Guinness for me, Tman.
*sigh* The OSCE monitors elections in first world countries all the time. They monitored the 2002 Congressional elections as well as the California gubernatorial elections. Note that Republicans won both of these contests.
Doesn’t mean I have to like it.
I don’t see what the big deal is. They don’t have any power over the local authorities. And it’s not like voting is streamlined and efficient in this country. If it makes the voting process better, why not do it?
“If it makes the voting process better, why not do it?”
It doesn’t make the voting process better. It’s a cheap political stunt that the rest of the world will throw this in our face every time we turn around. It’s quite annoying that the instigators see this as a bonus rather than a cost.
I sense an opportunity – station them in Chicago.
One better, station them in South Dakota. Let us see how Tom Daschle deals with that one.
Here’s why it’s bad: neither Congress nor that moron Powell have the authority to request anything to do with voting. That right is constitutionally held by the States (Art. 1 Sect. 4 for congress, Art 2 Sect. 1 and Amend 12 for Pres.)
Fuck these over-reaching bureaucrats right in their power-mad little hearts. I’m with Phelps – if I see one of these “inspectors” at my polling place, I will stick a shotgun up his ass and frog-march him out. I’m about fed up with this crap.
Powell had every right to make the request by virtue of the treaty we signed. Treaties, you may remember, are the supreme law of the land, according to the Constitution. The treaty does not grant the election monitors any authority over the election process themselves.
Again I ask everyone in this thread: where is your EVIDENCE that this is a bad idea, in light of the fact that the SAME ORGANIZATION monitored the 2002 Congressional elections AND the California recall election? Also, do you honestly believe that the American election process wouldn’t benefit from some transparency?
Alex, what improvements were made in California as a result of this monitoring? You ask why this is a bad idea. I ask you what makes it a good idea? What tangible benefit have we gained from the monitoring in 2002?
Funny. I wasn’t aware that it wasn’t transparent now.
The observers were invited because their mere presence will be referenced as evidence of shady activity after the election. It all goes around in circles…
I am frankly disappointed with Powell’s performance as Secretary of State. I acknowledge the tremendous amount of beauracratic inertia contained within the walls at Foggy Bottom but I had hoped that Powell would have the moxie to fire about half of those careerist gamesmen by now.
We need diplomats that see their mission as defending America, not staking out fiefdoms and cozy relationships with journos.
What’s not transparent?
For the sake of argument let’s say they find, oh I don’t know.. party influences giving away free cigarettes to the homeless to register and vote. Or vans full of non-english speaking individuals being held by the hand and shown where to vote by “helpers”?
Are you suggesting we’d actually know about these things unlike we do now? What would they do about it? I ask, what are the actual positives about their observations? The negitives? Implication that the UN holds some neutral influence over our own sovereign elections. So we know that Suddan is on the board for human rights, who pray tell is in this mysterious group of UN officials?
The UN is not a neutral party. They are not above corruption and political pressure. Why hold value in this service at all?
“The negitives? Implication that the UN holds some neutral influence over our own sovereign elections. So we know that Suddan is on the board for human rights, who pray tell is in this mysterious group of UN officials?”
Umm… the OSCE is not part of the UN at all. http://www.osce.org/general/
Looking for stuff on positive results. Bear in mind a lot of the positive results are probably intangibles. But they didn’t raise a fuss in the other elections–why would they in this one?
oh, not the UN.
Alex, look over there it’s Phyllis Diller!
/me runs away.
I disagree. This:
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/08/23&ID=Ar00301 and this are better.
If these observers were truly impartial, and they did their job and uncovered voting fraud, and they could do something about it, it would be very bad for the Dems. The fact that the weasels that called these guys in were all Dems leads me to believe that this will not happen.
Bush would probably have won a couple of extra States last time if not for Democrat voter fraud.
I don’t think it will make much difference. Bush could win with 70% of the vote and all 538 College ballots and the tinfoil hat brigade would still say he rigged the election.
Alex, so that’s the litmus test for why we do things? because we can’t PROVE they’re bad in advance, you know, with reams and reams of empirical evidence that ALL agrees on a negative outcome, decisively? and treaties are the supreme law of the land, ‘cause the Constitution says so, which means they trump the Constitution and its delegation of certain powers to the states? and if the monitors have no authority, shouldn’t they (and we) think they’re wasting somebody’s time and money? and don’t bring up Powell. you know as well as everyone here that Powell did what he was asked in transferring the bogus request through his office to these nonentities because if he didn’t, it would be another instance of fascism in the Bush Admin.
and I dug how you began your first post. style, dude, that’s what you’ve got.
Nice try, Alex. But the Constitution does not permit circumvention of State powers by treaty (Amend. 10). Congress and the executive branch are both out of bounds here, and citing a previous equally unconstitutional power grab does not legitimize this one.
And that should illustrate for you where the harm is being done here.
Try again.
Alex: I hate to tell you this, but a treaty has the force of stautory law. No Treaty can trump the Constitution. Can’t happen. Only way the Constitution can be changed is by amendment.
Slart:
Thanks for the NYSun article. I live in NYC, so I’m familiar with the problem. Mine was a rather narrow point regarding Florida, and not the broader issue nationwide.
Mr. Knapp must be a doctor operating under the rule of “first, do no harm.” Then utilized my negative argument, as regards 2002 and Calif., see they were here before and there was no problem!
The biggest problem with international election monitors is they have no standing here–nor under our system of a constitutional republic of democratic states, should they. We have our own system, let’s use it as it was designed. The solution as provided by Mr. Knapp is see the problem and provide a solution that is merely doing “it” differently. The people run the country, not the beauracracy. People should insist, through elections, that those elected carry out their obligations, which include secure and trustworthy voting process. The very idea of monitors is to encourage doubt. The system should prove out in advance that it operate properly and honestly, including appropriate audit and recount function as a regular function–not as some emergency measure.
A dispersed system–local control–by it’s nature discourages widespread manipulation. It may not be perfect regarding fraud–but we’ve already seen that that occured by means of the federal gov’ts imposition of the motor voter rules.
There is an unfortunate desire to move to national solutions, simply because some smarty thinks they “see” the problem, and have the magic bullet solution, without any regard to the unintended consequences. That is exactly the problem with int’l monitors. You cannot prove a negative vis-a-vis, what harm are they? Wrong question. What good will the serve–that is not already included in the system. And if the type of safeguards you’re interested in are not addressed, then publicly make your case, and incorporate it in the voting system. We operate on a formalized system of checks and balances, a not some system of ad hoc, by the seat of your pants, make it up and fix it as we go along. Extremely poor decisions are made that way, because they’re unably to rationally anticipate the consequences of the unanticipated sort.
Blah, blah, blah. Int’l monitors are a dumb solution to whatever voting problem you think they satisfy.
Err, guys the OSCE would be coming whether those blathering idiots of congresscritters had asked or not. All these international organisations work the same way: reciprocity. If the US wants to go see the elections in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan (both places where it does) then the US has to let people from those places come to the US. Just like kiddies playing Doctors and Nurses….”you show me yours and I’ll show you mine”. Just like all those START and SALT treaties….I’ll let you see my missiles if I can see yours.
I’ve got a long thing about it here:
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2004/08/osce_to_monitor.html
If these monitors are going to check if the “registered voters” are *alive* I’d say these monitors to CHICAGO!!!!
Do you know how many people currently 6 feet under are going to “rise up” and vote democratic here in the 2nd City? (Probably not, unless you’re from this town).
Damn it, if the Dems want to bring in foriegners to make sure we play fair, let ‘em.
So was mine. These are voting issues in Florida, for your enjoyment. Democrats loudly denouncing electoral shenanigans in Florida are displaying both ignorance of history and high irony, in parallel.