It’s Come to This: UN to Monitor US Election Process

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

playpens callin umselfs nations

un monitor fa their day out?

haaaaaaa

 

[JB3]

If it saves us from Bush v Gore repeat- I'm all for it- it just goes to show that the rest of the world knows something is going on here that's terribly wrong- and since we pretty much set the world agenda- they have a right to be concerned!!! Part of me is hoping Romney wins the popular vote and Obama the electoral- after Gore /Bush split it that way- Repubs across the country we're telling Dmes to shut up and accept it....$10,000 says Repubs won't accept it and sue for 8 years.

There are actually pretty strong indications this year could be another split like 2000.

 

[JB3]

hmmm

Nothing ehh?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-operation_in_Europe

As for whether the courts are interested in the views of the UN, especially the supreme court? That's a rather insular view of the world and it shows that you are ignoring the global economy and it's realities. It worked out so well during the Bush years to thumb our noses at the world... I can't wait to see what would happen if they found tampering by the winner, and the courts did not take action against them.

The title of the thread is just fine. Still waiting for someone to point to a lie.

It isn't a UN organization. It is chartered under Chapter VIII of the UN charter, which allows for regional organizations like NATO. It receives no funding from the UN, is not subject to the UN's control, and acts independently from it.

The best way to describe OSCE is as a partner organization to the UN. It is not a sub-organization of it, however.

 

[Kulindahr]

It isn't a UN organization. It is chartered under Chapter VIII of the UN charter, which allows for regional organizations like NATO. It receives no funding from the UN, is not subject to the UN's control, and acts independently from it.

The best way to describe OSCE is as a partner organization to the UN. It is not a sub-organization of it, however.

It bears a similar relation to the UN as the American Red Cross does to the federal government: it's recognized and chartered for a specific purpose, and nothing more.

 

[Corny]

this is pure comedic gold. the general attorney of texas threatened the OSCE observers with criminal prosecution.

http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96639

“The very idea that the United Nations – the world body dedicated to diminishing America’s role in the world – would be allowed, if not encouraged, to install foreigners sympathetic to the likes of Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and Putin to oversee our elections is nothing short of disgusting,” he told the Orlando Sentinal.

“The United Nations should be kicked off of American soil once and for all. And the American people should demand that the United Nations be stopped from ‘monitoring’ American elections. The only ones who should ever oversee American elections are Americans.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/...ns-to-arrest-international-election-monitors/

'murica .. fuck yeah!

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Do other counties monitor your elections in Germany?

I'm sure this will be a topic at the election judge training I attend on Saturday.

 

[Rolyo85]

^^^

Do other counties monitor your elections in Germany?

I'm sure this will be a topic at the election judge training I attend on Saturday.

Germany doesn't suppress parts of its population. It tried that and it didn't work great for the country or the world.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Might want to get a massage or get laid to relieve some of that stress.

 

[Kulindahr]

44 observers? Should be 4444.

I hope they do arrest an observer -- it would make an interesting case, which would go to the Supremes... and since the US is part of that organization, I think Texas would lose. Of course then there's the fact that the US has an official agreement authorizing their presence, which has weight similar to that of a treaty, and Texas is sunk.

 

[JB3]

44 observers? Should be 4444.

I hope they do arrest an observer -- it would make an interesting case, which would go to the Supremes... and since the US is part of that organization, I think Texas would lose. Of course then there's the fact that the US has an official agreement authorizing their presence, which has weight similar to that of a treaty, and Texas is sunk.

Not quite. Their agreement only authorizes them to be in states where their presence is legally allowed. Some states have laws specifically outlawing observers, and I'm sure any Texas action would fall under that category as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not quite. Their agreement only authorizes them to be in states where their presence is legally allowed. Some states have laws specifically outlawing observers, and I'm sure any Texas action would fall under that category as well.

I doubt such restrictions would be found constitutional. Observers can be considered "press", since they generally publish their results, so freedom of the press should apply.

I even voted once where there were observers. Local regs allowed anyone who objected to a certain organization doing observing to form a group and send their own observer, so there was a table (with coffee, donuts, sandwiches) with a half dozen people at it -- seemed to me they were putting more energy into making comments on the appearance and demeanor of voters than anything else, but maybe that's a result of watching things closely. They were positioned so they could see ballots being issued and collected, and voters entering and exiting booths.

 

[Corny]

Do other counties monitor your elections in Germany?

Germany invited the OSZE to monitor the elections in 2009. Most likely they will also be invited for 2013.


So just a little bit food for thought, especially for those with a statistical or mathematical background:

a paper that used the official data for the repub primary elections and noticed that there were 11 states with very obvious statistical anomalies of vote development during the primaries, all in favour of romney ..
and here's the deal, it seems those anomalies are only present when voting machines were used.

oops.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1GXt-ELbjTQdVEwakZXVXpqdUk/view?pli=1&sle=true

 

[Kulindahr]

Germany invited the OSZE to monitor the elections in 2009. Most likely they will also be invited for 2013.


So just a little bit food for thought, especially for those with a statistical or mathematical background:

a paper that used the official data for the repub primary elections and noticed that there were 11 states with very obvious statistical anomalies of vote development during the primaries, all in favour of romney ..
and here's the deal, it seems those anomalies are only present when voting machines were used.

oops.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1GXt-ELbjTQdVEwakZXVXpqdUk/view?pli=1&sle=true

So Romney's people rigged the election to make sure he had a majority before the convention. Gee, that gives confidence in him.

 

[bankside]

Try to look at it from a selfish point of view. The US has a strategic interest in fostering democracy abroad; there seems to even be bipartisan consensus on this matter. The US is not in a position to legitimately do much of anything regarding the validity of elections in other sovereign states.

However, by accepting the presence of observers, the US may benefit not only from their observations, but also by acknowledging the credibility of international monitoring and leading by example. This will make it easier to secure international observation in future elections in other countries whose own mechanisms for ensuring a fair vote are even more wanting. Thus a US strategic interest is served.

 

[Kulindahr]

However, by accepting the presence of observers, the US may benefit not only from their observations, but also by acknowledging the credibility of international monitoring and leading by example. This will make it easier to secure international observation in future elections in other countries whose own mechanisms for ensuring a fair vote are even more wanting. Thus a US strategic interest is served.

Excellent point!

It's the same reason Obama's speaking tour was a great job: admitting that we make mistakes makes it easier to trust us.

 

[JB3]

I doubt such restrictions would be found constitutional. Observers can be considered "press", since they generally publish their results, so freedom of the press should apply.

I even voted once where there were observers. Local regs allowed anyone who objected to a certain organization doing observing to form a group and send their own observer, so there was a table (with coffee, donuts, sandwiches) with a half dozen people at it -- seemed to me they were putting more energy into making comments on the appearance and demeanor of voters than anything else, but maybe that's a result of watching things closely. They were positioned so they could see ballots being issued and collected, and voters entering and exiting booths.

The constitution has no say in that, as that would be something left to the states.. Observers are not press. If they were to be considered press, anyone could stay at a polling place claiming to be press.

 

[bankside]

I doubt such restrictions would be found constitutional. Observers can be considered "press", since they generally publish their results, so freedom of the press should apply.

I even voted once where there were observers. Local regs allowed anyone who objected to a certain organization doing observing to form a group and send their own observer, so there was a table (with coffee, donuts, sandwiches) with a half dozen people at it -- seemed to me they were putting more energy into making comments on the appearance and demeanor of voters than anything else, but maybe that's a result of watching things closely. They were positioned so they could see ballots being issued and collected, and voters entering and exiting booths.

I'm surprised you don't have scrutineers as a standard part of the voting. It's a fundamental right as a person standing for office that you would be able to have a non-interfering representative watching the actions of voting officials. I thought that was a universal thing not subject to local whim.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm surprised you don't have scrutineers as a standard part of the voting. It's a fundamental right as a person standing for office that you would be able to have a non-interfering representative watching the actions of voting officials. I thought that was a universal thing not subject to local whim.

It does seem like common sense, huh?

 

[Kulindahr]

since the tea party just released a guide showing members how to harrass/intimidate minority voters on election day- they plan to unleash 100,000 'observers', I'd be more worried about them than the UN!

Maybe I should print out the Libertarian Online press credentials and go be an observer somewhere Tea Party [STRIKE]haras[/STRIKE] observers show up.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

Sorry -- people aren't buying the libertarian thing anymore.