Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Europeans To Monitor American Voters

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the oh-goodie-supervision dept.

United States 1867

shonagon53 writes "The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy. But since the Florida 2000 fiasco, things have changed. Europe's famous Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) will now be monitoring the U.S. elections. The institution normally monitors elections in third world countries in transition, and in crisis areas or regions where civil wars have destabilized the political process. In november, the OSCE will be monitoring local and state elections in Kazakhstan, Skopje, Eastern Congo, Ouagadougou and... the United States. As the BBC reports, for some Americans this comes as a humiliation; others see it as a necessity, since they have lost trust in the American election process."

cancel ×

1867 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

mistakes (5, Insightful)

dncsky1530 (711564) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357625)

It's always good to learn from your mistakes, but it's even better to learn from someone elses.

Re:mistakes (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357646)

gmail invites [slashdot.org]

two FP's in a row motherfuckers! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357626)

-- .e.o __l__ __l__
- .ecloudo l. . .l i. . .l
. ooe l. . .i l. . .i
- l`\ o l. . .l i. . .l
l\_\_\___, l. . .i l. . .i
-= l_JEWAIR__\ . .l. . .l i. . .l
- / / . . . . l. . .i l. . .i
-- l_/ - i l. . .l i. . .l
-- - - l. . .i l. . .i
concreteconcretecol. i .lci. i .lconcret
concreteconcreteconcreteconcreteconcret e

iji iji iji iji iji iji jtiji iji iji iji iji iji
iji iji iji iji iji ijjDMNQtiji iji iji iji iji ij
iji iji iji iji iji cXMNMNMNQjiji iji iji iji iji
iji iji iji iji ijcSMNMNMNMNHJiji iji iji ij iji ij
iji iji iji iji iSWMNMNMNMHJiji iji iji ij iji iji
iji iji iji iji6WMNMNMNMNYiji iji Jciji iji iji ij
iji iji iji i5WMNMNMNMN5iji iji JHMNSc iji iji iji
iji iji iji5NMNMNMNMW5iji iji JHMNMN MWSiji iji iji
iji iji ijcXMNMNMNMNNYiji ijtKMNMN MNMNMW6iji iji i
iji iji iji jDMNMNMNMNHJijtQMNMN MNMNMNMNMW5iji iji
iji itciji iji QMNMNMNMNKDMNMN MNMNQWMNMNMNMN5iji i
ijitKMWSiji iji jQMNSIEGMNMN MNMNQtijSWMNMNMNMNYiji
itQMNMNMW6iji iji tKMNMNMN MNMNKtiji icSMNMNMNMNHJi
iJHMNHEILMW6iji ijcSMNMN MNMNMNDjiji ijicXMNMNMNN5i
ijiYNMNMNMNMN5ijiSWMNM MNMNMNMNMNDciji ijicDMNW6iji
iji i5NMNMNMNMNSWMNM MNMNHNMNMNMNMNXciji iji 5iji i
iji iji5WMNMNMNMNM MNMNN5ij5NMNMNMNMNSciji iji iji
iji iji i6WMNMNM MNMNW5iji ij6WMNMNMNMWSiji iji iji
iji iji ijiSWM MNMNW6iji iji tKMNMNMNMNXciji iji ij
iji iji iji cSMNWSiji iji tQMNMNMNMNDjiji iji iji
iji iji ij iji c6ciji iji QMNMNMNMNQjiji iji iji ij
iji iji iji iji iji ijjDMNMNMNMNQtiji iji iji iji
iji ij iji iji iji ijcXMNMNMNMNKtiji iji iji iji ij
iji iji iji iji iji jQMNMNMNHJiji iji iji iji iji
ij iji iji iji iji iji tKMNHJiji iji iji iji iji ij
iji iji iji iji iji iji tYiji iji iji iji iji ij ij

Re:two FP's in a row motherfuckers! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357636)

You missed.

Re:two FP's in a row motherfuckers! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357644)

no yuo

You knew it was coming... (1, Funny)

Txiasaeia (581598) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357627)

Obligatory Nelson quote: "Ha ha!"

free gmail invites (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357634)

Re:free gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357729)

wow thanx man! wanna cyber? email me at eleventhhour@gmail.com

Oh, I can't help it.. (0, Redundant)

segfault7375 (135849) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357635)


In Soviet Russia, the elections watch YOU!

America (2)

stateofmind (756903) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357639)

It is very humiliating... but after the 2000 fiasco, I don't want a repeat of that.

Things have changed so much in the last few years. Or actually, they haven't changed, just that SO much shit is happening in the goverment now, it's spilling into the public light more and more.

God bless the USA.

Josh

Re:America (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357716)

This is God speaking: I've blessed the rest of the world since the USA is run by a bunch of evil idiots.

Thanks Flordia Republicans. (1, Flamebait)

GodHead (101109) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357640)

Really gives me pride in the US.

And to those who say Dem's would do the same thing.. they haven't yet.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357659)

yes, republicans are to blame for everything.

and if the democrats take over, it will be the return to the garden of freaking of eden over night.

they personally talk to jesus and really truely care about everyone.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357681)

Shrub thinks he is the voice of God. Personally talking to Jesus seams a bit less crazy.

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357685)

I thought *Bush* was the deluded moron who thinks God is on his side. Yeah... that's it...

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357715)

Mods, please please please STOP FUCKING MODERATING BASED ON YOUR OWN POLITICS!! IT'S NOT FLAMEBAIT OR TROLLING TO POST YOUR OPINION ON SLASHDOT! Especially if that opinion isn't badly formed or insulting. See parent if you're too dumb to know what I'm talking about!

Re:Thanks Flordia Republicans. (1, Insightful)

casuist99 (263701) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357737)

Moderators, the parent isn't flamebait. Moderate on content, not your personal ideology. It'll attract attention and comments, but in the same way discussions about copyrights do. Come on.

YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357642)

Take that YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDS!! We are watching the elections in YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDISTAN because you cannot be trusted.

Re:YANKEE IMPERIALIST BASTARDS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357744)

What is the matter, Yankee Imperialist Bastards? Don't like the new name the civilised world has given your nation?

US votes? (1, Interesting)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357647)

What's the point... the turn out for voting is always at an all time low... the system is flawed... we need a better system to elect people to power.

Re:US votes? (0, Troll)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357746)

What's the point... the turn out for voting is always at an all time low... the system is flawed... we need a better system to elect people to

Yep, it's called the popular vote.

If the popular vote was implemented before 2000 we wouldn't be suffering from the insane megalomanical texan from hell(aka as 'w' in the sheep-fucker/slave master circles).

Unfortunately I live in a conservative state, where my voice won't be heard. It's really demoralizing to know that a few scattered no-consequence swing-states will determine our next president in november.

Re:US votes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357782)

The system is fine. The problem lies within the fact that there is no one good to vote for. Two party systems suck.

Re:US votes? (1)

urbaer (778997) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357794)

Force people to vote. Then you can get donkey votes [australianpolitics.com] ... Fun for the whole family.

Re:US votes? (2, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357801)

The system isn't flawed because people don't vote.

If people don't vote, then they don't vote. Do you really think that George W. Bush and John F. Kerry would be the candidates if say 80% of people that could vote would vote?

Hell no.

The system is the system, it works fine, except for say 1876 and 2000, from 1789 on. The system isn't the cause of low voter turnout or a lack of viable third candidate. Look at the third candidates we've had since 1988 in the US.

Any of them capable of gathering enough support to really be President of the United States from the voters or the members of the Senate and House? One, Ross Perot and in the middle of his run in 1992, he quit, then came back and was still able to get 18.87% of the Popular vote, but no states, what might have been if he'd not quit and then come back?

Hey! (5, Funny)

Crystalmonkey (743087) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357648)

Hey! We are perfectly capable of voting on our own thank you! The Diebold company assures me of that.

Someone set us up the bomb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357649)

It's a Trap?

uncontrollable laughter (3, Funny)

zorgaliscious (619362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357650)

I laughed for about 2 minutes and people in the apartment are looking at me funny. This is just too funny. I wonder if and how Fox will report it "Kerry calls upon his french contributors to undermine the US of A" oh god, this news makes my day...

Re:uncontrollable laughter (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357764)

the same french contributors who led to the founding of the US of A?

Hmm.. (2, Insightful)

Maxite (782150) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357652)

The OSCE may try to monitor the elections, but what's to stop some corrupt politicians from exporting the officials, or even arresting them for "terrorist" charges?

Somehow, I feel the OSCE may help, but I doubt that the help will really be enough.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357709)

They've survived elections in far more corrupt and far less stable nations than the US - I'm sure they'll be OK.

Re:Hmm.. (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357796)

There was no war on terror at the time. Plus now the stakes are very high. It is not the elections in a third world country where it does not really matter for the rest of the world. This can have an impact on us all.

Take off your tin-foil hat (1)

glpierce (731733) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357743)

If OSCE officials were thrown out of the country, it would be an international incident of World War-starting proportions. The problem is that they may not be given access to the information they need, not that they'll be called terrorists. As corrupt as politics have become, the players aren't the fools people like to think they are. Dirty games call for dirty tricks, but you still need brains to play. (Oh, and don't call Bush an idiot just because he plays one on TV.)

Re:Take off your tin-foil hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357780)

I'll give you that his handlers aren't idiots, but if Bush is acting, he could win an oscar.

MONITOR THESE NUTZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357656)

BIATCH.

Jst a asmall nitpick (4, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357662)

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy."

A nitpick, I know, but this is not strictly true. You've had a civil war, after all, which does not make it stable. There's quite a few other countries with as good, or better, record in this respect.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357691)

And that civil war was over 100 years ago.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357779)

+1 "unintentionally funny"

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (1)

cfalcon (779563) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357714)

Well, assuming that *is* valid, is there a democracy that has existed, say, since the civil war, besides the US?

There might be, I dunno. But the civil war happened a long time ago, and the other nations at that time were usually not really elected so much.

On the other hand, your point is also contestable based on the fact that the civil war resolved in favor of the status quo. I'm not sure if that's a valid point to argue on, though.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357771)

Ah, but that's one civil war in over 200 years, and even when we had the civil war, both sides had democratic styles of government.

Re:Jst a asmall nitpick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357798)

Usono estas republiko ne demokratio. Stultajn fremdulojn.
Bonvolu, vocxdonos favore al GWB!

Sign of the NYTimes (0)

poofyhairguy82 (635386) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357664)

for some Americans this comes as a humiliation; others see it as a necessity, since they have lost trust in the American election process

So...red states vs. the blue on this issue? How original.

This is a good thing (5, Insightful)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357665)

...if the US wants to ask third-world countries to allow their elections to be monitored, it can now say that it's happy for its own processes to be monitored.

You're confused. (0, Flamebait)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357717)

Monitors only go to 3rd world contries when asked by the host countries. It's a way of demonstrating to the world their legitamacy.

The US has no need to do this. 2000 was an anomoly where the results were so close that the differential was within the margin of error.

The rules in place, ie the Constitution, mandated that Bush win the election. The Sore/Losermen were full of sour grapes and cried foul.

Re:You're confused. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357777)

If your Constitution really says that Bush won, which it doesn't, then you really need a new Constitution.

Re:You're confused. (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357789)

Well then you'll agree that the only reason not to have international monitors is the cost, but that's trivial compared to what's at stake.

Unless you have another reason? Saving face, for instance? Sorry, but when it comes to games of pride and nationalism, it isn't worth it. There simply isn't a valid excuse to not have it. Always err on the side of caution, especially with something so ridiculously important as this.

Bush (-1, Troll)

SQLz (564901) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357667)

Bush!! Redneck approved! Supreme court elected!

Uhm, no. (1, Insightful)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357668)

Why the hell would we Europeans care? Americans are old and capable enough to take care of themselves and their elections. They are also old and capable enough to fuck themselves up the ass with a toiletbrush if they want to. Point is, they can take care of their business and by now. Let them hold their elections, use the money for more important crap, which definitely excludes baby-sitting the US.

Re:Uhm, no. (4, Insightful)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357726)

The rest of the world has a very vested interest in the contiuance of the United States of America. If faith in elections falls apart, it could have serious effects on the country, and if the US were in turmoil, it would significantly negatively impact the rest of the world.

Re:Uhm, no. (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357734)

Yeah, why would Europe care?

It's not like the outcome of a U.S. election would have any global relevance, or have any bearing on the peace, security or economic health of the rest of the world.

Re:Uhm, no. (3, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357736)

That's great - until the actions of the US start to have a significant effect on the rest of the world, which they already have. Then you start caring about who's in power over there.

Why not? (1)

darin3200 (791186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357669)

Will it hurt that a 3rd party watches over votes? No, after Florida in 2000 it is a good idea. The problem is that before in Florida chads could be counted, now all they can see is certain votes being directed to /dev/null. Actually, that would be lucky, but alas, the voting machines run Windows. Now only if they could get rid of the Diebold voting machines.

This just in... (1)

pen (7191) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357670)

The FBI has confirmed links between OSCE, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the Axis of Evil. We must protect the Fatherland by deporting these infidels immediately!

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357721)

We must protect the Fatherland by deporting these infidels immediately!
---

Correction:

We must bomb these sons of bitches, immediately.

end of line

Two ways this can go (4, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357672)

1. Observers see no problems, report they see no problems, and we get to stop hearing made-up nonsense about widespread election problems.

2. Observers claim they see problems. They might be telling the truth. They might be lying. Everyone gets upset. We never find out conclusively one way or the other.

I hope they bring their video cameras.

Re:Two ways this can go (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357723)

3. Observers observe widespread corruption, lead to massive investigation into the election process.

4. ???

If you're going to make a definitive list of ways something can go, try to make it definitive.

Re:Two ways this can go (1)

Kohath (38547) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357765)

#3 is covered under #2

Lost faith? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Cowtard (573891) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357676)

Those that lost faith in the process are those who never fully understood it in the first place, ie the electoral college and the possibility of a winner who didn't get the popular vote.

Indeed! (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357707)

I mean...it's not like the dead are voting...

Bah (5, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357677)

No one came over to monitor the 1880 election after the 1876 election so why are they "monitoring" the Presidental Election this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_e le ction%2C_1876

http://www.michaellorenzen.com/1876.html

"In 1876 the election for the President of the United States ended in a dispute. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden received 184 electoral votes, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes received 165, and 20 electoral votes were uncertain, two different sets of returns being certified. The Electoral Commission was formed to settle the result. The disputed results involved 19 electors from Florida, Louisana, and South Carolina as well as one from Oregon. In those states, the official returns favored the Democrats, but the elections were marked by fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters and the Republican dominated electoral commissions were able to throw out enough votes to allow the Republicans to win those states. The result was two sets of returns, one certified by the governor favoring the Republicans and one certified by the state legislatures favoring the Democrats.

In the case of Oregon, the votes were clearly in favor of the Republicans. However, one of the Republican electors was a postmaster. The Democratic governor claimed that the elector was constitutionally disqualified on the grounds of holding a Federal office and therefore substituted a Democratic elector in his place."

soldiers need help (3, Insightful)

gobblez (659715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357678)

maybe they can help us soldiers in iraq who are unable to vote. we were unable to get ahold of absentee ballots, and if we did it'd be too late anyways, the deadline was last month.

The Onion (1)

kjones692 (805101) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357683)

I seem to recall an Onion article in the wake of the 2000 election with the headline, "Syria to deploy peacekeeping troops to U. S. to restore order after chaotic election".

Finally, it's coming true.

fairness (2, Interesting)

noelo (661375) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357684)

I'm not an American but I can imagine that this process would be humiliating. However I feel that if at the end the monitors come out and say that the process was entirely fail then all the better. The USA always goes on that it is a leading light of democracy. Now is the time to put that mantra to the test.

2000 election (2, Informative)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357690)

The 2000 election was not a screwup, it was a coin toss. Neither candidate won a majority of the popular vote in either the nation or in Florida. In fact, in both the differences were statistically insignificant. Half the country wanted Gore, half wanted Bush. There was no way to resolve the issue without one side feeling cheated.

Add to that, the US is a sovereign nation. Europe can monitor the elections all they want, they still can't do shit about it.

Re:2000 election (1)

ajakk (29927) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357730)

Amen.

Spam filter sucks. Spam filter sucks. Spam filter sucks. Spam filter sucks.

Why do do few people see this? (1)

glrotate (300695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357753)

It was a coin toss where the coin landed on the third side, the edge. We really don't know who actually won Florida, it depends on how you count 'em. The rules in place made Bush the winner. Some people just can't deal with it.

Why? (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357693)

Why aren't they checking on the dead voting in Chicago or the illegals voiting in Southern California?

Re:Why? (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357700)

Or all the snowbirds that voted in New York (absentee) and Florida in the last election?

Okay.... (1)

bburton (778244) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357695)

"the OSCE will be monitoring local and state elections in Kazakhstan, Skopje, Eastern Congo, Ouagadougou and... the United States."

Ok, I really don't see what power a foriegn entity has over America's political machine...

Really, what are they going to do if they find something they don't like: "We Europeans order you to STOP your elections immediately!" ... yeaaahh, I don't think so.

This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (1, Troll)

Munkis_Der_Kanzler (661160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357696)

As a sovereign nation, our elections are our own business.

Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357791)

Ahhh ... you mean like elections in Iraq [fantompowa.net] are the sole business of Iraqi citizens?

Or Chile [thirdworldtraveler.com] ?

Or Haiti and Venezuela [indymedia.org.uk] ?

Or maybe the one of the myriad other countries that have seen similar US interference?

Help me out here, I'm confused ...

Re:This is a gross violations of US sovereignty (3, Informative)

peope (584706) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357802)

OSCA was asked by the US to come. They where invited.

OSCA has a policy to always accept these invitations.

This is great news... (4, Funny)

robotoil (627969) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357697)

As an American, I welcome oversight from a foreign country. Oh, any by all means, let it be a 3rd world nation where they take the vote seriously.

This Has Happened Before... (5, Informative)

PipianJ (574459) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357698)

As in the Columbia Spectator... [columbiaspectator.com]

The OSCE was actually invited by the State Department (unlike the attempted invitation of the United Nations by Democrats in the House) and has observed elections in the US before, such as during the 2002 mid-terms and the California gubernatorial race. Indeed, the former Bush, in 1990, signed the Copenhagen Document which stated that signers (such as the US) may "invite observers from any other [OSCE] participating States ... to observe the course of their national election proceedings."

Sadly, this is necessary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357699)

Face it. We have a fanatical regime in power that has no repect for the constitution or the rights of individuals and will do anything to stay in power. Hopefully, we are not heading down a path which will ultimately require the European powers to return a 60 year old favor and invade us to rescue us from our own goverment.

monroe doctrine (1)

sinnfeiner1916 (793749) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357701)

if i see one at my polling precint, i'm kicking his ass. 'nuff said.

Sad, sad indeed (2, Informative)

Large Bogon Collider (815523) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357711)

I can believe that we have allowed ourselves to sink this low. Here we are, arguably the most powerful nation on earth (at present), and we ask outsiders to help up elect our top leader. I understand that the rationale is to have a "disinterested" 3rd party to mediate disputes, but I am worried that is another step to a global government. I hope that this does not happen because that much power concentrated in a few people can only mean trouble.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What a joke (-1, Troll)

yog (19073) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357718)

The Europeans are so righteous when it comes to democracy. They also happen to be jealous of the United States and its freedom to act in the world, so they (probably mainly driven by the French) now seek to belittle the US in the eyes of the world.

Remind me again, why did over 295,000 Americans give their lives to free France from the Nazis and why did the U.S. spend countless billions of dollars protecting these people from Stalinism?

What people seem to be missing is that democracy works in the U.S. The Florida election was flawed but it did not result in a military coup or power grab; the competing candidates waited for the courts to decide the outcome. That half the people would be unhappy with the outcome was a given no matter who won.

Indeed, as a direct result of the 2000 elections, record numbers of new voters have been registered in swing states and among traditionally non-voting strata. It's going to be a lively contest even without a bunch of holier-than-thou Euros running around.

I'm confused on this one. (2, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357719)

Yes, part of me says "Good. There's always room for review by an outside opinion." But then I have to ask whether this organization is really going to be all that impartial. Knowing little about them I can't vouch for the idea.

The problem with having foreign nations monitor a political system for fairness is the the country will someday have to deal with the nations reviewing it on a foreign-relations basis. Ulterior motives and vested intersts will abound.

Huh? "Most stable?" (5, Insightful)

mwillems (266506) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357725)

"The United States is known as being the world's most stable democracy"

Huh? By whom? By Americans. Just like the German system is 'known' as being the most stable etc etc by Germans, the Finnish system is 'known' as being the most stable etc etc by Finns, etc.

Sorry, but I stop reading at that point. Anyone who says something like that needs to do a bit of research. Objectively, how do you mention stability? By lives lost in wars? Civil wars waged? People in prison as a percentage of the population? The relationship between percentage of votes cast and actual representation? Freedom ensconced in the constitution? Hanging or pregnant Chads? And by those citeria, are you still the most stable? And then following on, are you "known" to be the most stable? By whom? By the Chinese? By young Arabs? By the French?

I could go on but I am getting tired trying to bridge a gap of this magnitude...

Re:Huh? "Most stable?" (1, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357755)

Iceland

Switzerland

Re:Huh? "Most stable?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357800)

"Sorry, but I stop reading at that point. "

Relax dude, that's just the submitter.

World's most stable democracy? (1)

deep square leg (703399) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357728)

I'd like to see where this little factoid was referenced from, please.

Under who's authority (0, Troll)

Plaeroma (778381) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357739)

I RTFA but I couldn't find anywhere that stated who called this shot. Did the OSCE make the decision? Some aliens with freaky oblong bodies? Crazy extremist politico nuts? Or maybe all 3? I'm not saying I think elections should go unmonitored (although fucks up started well before 2000). I'm just curious as who's idea this was and how it was 'passed.'

Automation at last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357742)

Well what is the problem? If you fail to vote in the approved manner ... the election machines will do it for you!

The US election was fine (1, Insightful)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357747)

The last US election went fine. Remember, Bush won Florida by a little bit. Gore got all upset and went to court for recounts and all that. We all talked about interpreting chads and crap and in the end, Bush won Florida and the election. It pointed out a strange property of the system that allows the person with the popular vote not to win, but that is the system that's been in place for ages.

The voting system isn't perfect - never has been. People hate Bush, look at the legal battle and recounting (which Gore wanted) and the fact that he didn't have the majority vote nationwide, and think he somehow cheated.

The only major flaw I see is the one that has all attention focused on the 2 inferior candidates. Oh, that and Diebold voting machines. But then, I could be blind.

There's nothing unstable about it (3, Informative)

PickyH3D (680158) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357749)

The fact that the country did not break into civil war is because we ARE a model democracy.

This applies whether you agree with the outcome of the election or not.

The idea that a close vote means that we're unstable is ridiculous. There are rules and regulations for these scenarios and they were followed. Unfortunately, a few were added as well (ah hem, hanging chads), but all hell did NOT break loose and the results were LAWFULLY established.

whatever (1)

Page7 (816791) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357750)

This sounds like a great thing, but really- who cares? the popular vote is worthless, as 2000 proved. this election will probably be decided in the electoral college, which will probably (again) tell the country that the individual's vote doesn't matter. again. and besides, even if this organization discovered some huge corruption scandal, americans probably wouldnt care. the bush propaganda machine would spin it off at some pussy frenchmen sticking their noses into our affairs.

The biggest problem with this... (2, Insightful)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357754)

..is that it doesn't address the most common type of vote fraud in the U.S., which might be termed voter registration fraud. As long as people showing up at the polls get in and get their votes counted, an outside observer is likely to conclude that all is well. Will an outside observer even notice that there are more voters registered in St. Louis or Philadelphia than the census says there are adults in those cities?

And how much is someone paying these people (1)

shockingbluerose (810180) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357760)

I seriously doubt this organization is doing this out of the kindness of their heart. Someone, or some group is doing it to make a statement. What on earth is the US of A becoming?

Just Stupid (1)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357761)

This is just plain stupid. What happends if the OSCE says there is some problems, but all the local authorities disagree? For argument's sake, what if in this theoretical situation the OSCE is wrong? They have NO AUTHORITY, but sure could muck up a lot of stuff with doubt. I would be much happier with a domestic organization appointed by the congress or somebody.

They have lost trust in the American election... (1, Insightful)

NoMoreNicksLeft (516230) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357762)

Sorry, but I'm supposed to trust some toothless european agency with ulterior motives any more?

Sure, the election has been rigged... and it was done two years ago. I can't help but feel derision for anyone who either A) doesn't point that out or B) treat it as so obvious that it doesn't require mentioning.

When they steal our choice from us, please note that it's not in some dangling chads on ballots that should be awarded to Kerry, it was when they only allowed us the choice between Kerry and Bush. Neither are acceptable.

What's the big deal? (5, Insightful)

Malfourmed (633699) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357766)

Even the biggest, most ethical companies are audited every year*. In fact, the willingnes to submit oneself to external scrutiny sends a much more comforting signal that there is nothing to hide or be ashamed of.

Why shouldn't the same be true for elections?

* Yes, audits of public (and certain private) companies are mandatory not voluntary, but it's the principle of the matter that applies.

Monitoring is good (2, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357767)

I don't see why/how this should be humiliating. History has shown (many times) that not even the best of us (in whatever area of life) are to be trusted 100% all the time. People fail, systems fail, democracies fail. For one, I don't mind having election monitoring in my country, since that reassures me there was no trouble and no tricks were pulled. Americans should feel the same. Americans are humans too, and humans all make mistakes (internally or otherwise). Or, would they feel safer if FoxNews or some US govt funded organization was 'monitoring'?

Re:Monitoring is good (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357788)

"intentionally", not "internally". Have no idea how I typed that :)

I'll save you some time (1)

stinky wizzleteats (552063) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357772)

Just hang out in the Florida Supreme Court building. Keep an eye on them, and everything should be just fine.

What went wrong with the last election.. (2, Interesting)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357774)

that a european organization can fix by monitoring everything? They can't do anything. All they're going to end up doing is saying that something wasn't done correctly and wheover loses the election will use that to turn the nation to civil war again. No one cheated in the last election, it was just a close call.

Are they bringing free sacks of wheat? (2, Funny)

istartedi (132515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357778)

No? Then what good are they? :)

I agree with this completely (1)

AbstracTus (576474) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357784)

I think this is necessary, although I'm kind of surprised that the American authorities allow this kind of surveilance. I would have thought that they were too proud (for their own good). But I'm really really really glad this is happening, and hope this election will turn out better than the last one (in terms of counting votes). And of course, I hope every /. reader will go out and vote. For the record: I am not an American, so my opinion are not completely unbiased.

CNN has more (5, Informative)

ojg (548554) | more than 9 years ago | (#10357792)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/internat ional.observers/ [cnn.com]

This story explains why it is the OSCE that has been invited to do the job and not the UN, which is more common. Of course it has to do with the US congress where mentioning the two letters U.N. is worse than mentioning the four letters f.u.c.k.

As a European living in the US, I remember that back in 2000 I mentioned to my friends using UN elections monitors for the next election, after which I was verbally lynched for about an hour.

Apparently not a popular idea :)

Will they monitor in Philadelphia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10357799)

Site of 99% turnouts that voted 98% for Al Gore? Numbers that would make Joe Stalin proud?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>