Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Please Do Not Monitor My Vote 70

Journal by pudge

The State Department, for reasons I cannot fathom, asked the UN to help monitor the upcoming national elections.

First, let us note that there are pros and cons to this having to do with perception, and let us acknowledge they exist and not dwell upon them.

Second, let us recognize that most of the people pushing for this -- both voters and elected representatives -- believe Bush was not legally elected, and are therefore stupid. This does not, however, directly reflect on the issue.

Third, let us recall that the U.S. has never looked favorably on any foreign influences on our political process, including -- but not limited to -- funding, oversight, legislation, etc. Congress is the ultimate body deciding our law, and everything must pass through them, and anything any foreign body wants us to do must pass through it. The UN could not exercise any power whatsoever over our process without Congressional approval.

Fourth, let us ask whether this is a Constitutional imposition on the states. The federal government, as was made very clear in Bush v Gore, has no say in elections unless a state's actions in regard to that election are in violation of federal law. I see no legal reason the states should have to comply with any federally imposed monitoring, and if I were in control of a state, I would simply disallow it.

Some might say the federal government has the implied power to monitoring elections, since the Constitution gives it the power to punish abuses. But that would be like saying the government has the right to search your house for unreported income just because it has the Constitutional power to tax your income (and the implied power to penalize abuses). It may be the case then that in a state where abuses have been proven, that mandated monitoring may be part of a federally imposed remedy, but that also implies a case going to court, and finding against the particular state, and it would only apply to that state.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Please Do Not Monitor My Vote More

Please Do Not Monitor My Vote

Comments Filter:

  • When? (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    Should the UN ever monitor a nation's elections?
    • Yes.

      The UN, horrid as it is, stands for fairness. There are areas of the world that are well known to be corrupt, and where voters are intinidated. Whether it was Soviet Russia or the Palestinian Authority.

      Basically if the leaders do not want it, but the people want it (overwhelmingly), they should be there.

    • When should I ever kill someone?

      I try not to think about it, because it's such a horrible thing and I hope it never happens.
    • ``Should the UN ever monitor a nation's elections?''

      That's a good question. Just because the last elections were fishy doesn't really mean that this time, they "should" be monitored. There are lots of countries that don't even have any meaningful elections; I don't see the UN monitoring democracy there.

      On the other hand, the USA prides itself in its democracy, and tries to impose its values on other countries. With the vast power that the USA has, the rest of the world certainly has an interest in making
      • Since the UN is about the most impartial organization on the planet

        Sorry, we are having a *serious* discussion here; it's not the place for comedy.
  • Isn't it in the world's best interest to keep US elections free and fair?
    • Many people, myself included, don't think "United Nations" and "free and fair" go together in the same sentence.

      The UN makes no secret of its dislike for many aspects of our government. Do you trust them to merely "observe" and not interfere? If they don't like the result, they could easily make up allegations of wrongdoing.

      • No need to make up allegations in some cases. The Florida recount had "angry mobs" of "Florida" voters chanting "no more recounts" outside the florida voting administration offices which turned out to be republican capitol hill congressional assistants that were flown in for the purpose.
    • No, it is not in the world's best interest. Like inviting trolls from the underworld, or police without a search warrant, they cannot come in uninvited, but once there they never leave.

      For instance, look at Lebanon. Once a thriving country, until Arafat came in and made civil unrest. Unlike Jordan, which crushed Arafat in Black September, Lebanon required help. Israel moved in (mostly unwelcome) and then the Syrians were invited. Now, more than a score of years later, Syria has never left, and has a very s

      • Hah (Score:2)

        by sulli ( 195030 ) *
        Should the US invite the UN in, it would be an admission that the US is not fair. This would delegitimize the US in the world's eyes.

        Are you really serious? Do you really think we have any legitimacy left in the community of nations after four years of GW Bush?

        I take this issue seriously. I'm an American, a candidate for office, and so I am deeply concerned about the fairness of American elections. Florida in 2000 proved to the world that our electoral system is vulnerable to manipulation and politica

        • Florida 2000 proved to the world that we have laws in place to determine the results of a close election, and that the rule of law does prevail even if the loser tries to circumvent or change the rules mid-game.
        • Are you really serious? Do you really think we have any legitimacy left in the community of nations after four years of GW Bush?

          Of course. The recount fiasco did make Americans look like a bunch of third-world idiots, but eventually the official results were upheld and validated by multiple independent recounts (including under Gore's own rules). Not that that development received much attention, of course...

          Florida in 2000 proved to the world that our electoral system is vulnerable to manipulation and

        • Re:Hah (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          Are you really serious? Do you really think we have any legitimacy left in the community of nations after four years of GW Bush?

          Of course we do. Look at our recent dealings with China and Russia, and our dealings with Iran and North Korea, not to mention the UN resolution for Iraq a few months ago. If you think the US has no legitimacy or credibility left, you just aren't paying attention.

          Why not ask observers from legitimately democratic nations to help us make sure we take appropriate action to addr
  • The State Department, for reasons I cannot fathom, asked the UN to help monitor the upcoming national elections.

    That's not right. A delegation of House Democrats, led by Texas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, asked the State Department to invite UN observers in, but that's not what State did. In fact, the House recently voted to amend its budget bill to prohibit any government agency from inviting UN observers to monitor our elections.

    What State actually did was invite observers from OSCE, the Organization fo
    • Oh, not the UN. I couldn't care much less, as my objections don't change. The State Department has no business doing this outside of Congress, and the federal government has no business pushing this on the states. I suppose it is less problematic than the UN since it is not a government body (as the UN thinks it is), but my concern is primarily about the states' rights issue.
      • The State Department has no business doing this outside of Congress

        Sure, they do. The State Department is the diplomatic branch of the federal government.

        and the federal government has no business pushing this on the states

        The federal government handles all international relations, including treaties and other accords.

        but my concern is primarily about the states' rights issue

        The states have no rights at all when it comes to the conduct of international relations. That power is reserved for the fed
        • The State Department is the diplomatic branch of the federal government.

          Yes, and? The State Department can't do anything it wants diplomatically when it comes to internal U.S. affairs.

          The federal government handles all international relations, including treaties and other accords.

          So? Elections are a state matter entirely, except where the states break federal law regarding the vote, and only then may the federal government step in. Saying this is about "international relations" is a complete non se
          • The State Department can't do anything it wants diplomatically when it comes to internal U.S. affairs.

            Um. Actually, yeah, it pretty much can. It's an executive-branch thing.

            Saying this is about "international relations" is a complete non sequitur.

            Gee, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about inviting international observers to witness our democratic process.
            • "I thought we were talking about inviting international observers to witness our democratic process."

              No, I think we are talking about inviting international observers to witness our undemocratic process.

              It was hard to find much on the web about bringing in the Europeans in to monitor the election, but I found one thats says the stat eof Florida told them to go to hell and they had to stand 50 feet away from the polls with the rest of the rabble. Kind of makes you wonder what they want to hide.
              • I found one thats says the stat eof Florida told them to go to hell and they had to stand 50 feet away from the polls with the rest of the rabble.

                Excellent! Good for them. Got a link?

                Kind of makes you wonder what they want to hide.

                So if the government comes to you and says they want to look at all of your financial records, even though they have no warrant because there is no allegation you broke any law, you would say yes, because you have nothing to hide?
            • Um. Actually, yeah, it pretty much can. It's an executive-branch thing.

              Um. Actually, no, it pretty much can't. It cannot force the states to comply with anything the federal government does not have the authority to force compliance with.

              Gee, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about inviting international observers to witness our democratic process.

              Yes, we were, but the fact that the federal government handles international relations has no bearing on whether they can force the states to comply wi
  • The 'monitoring' is to be done by the OSCE [osce.org]. Didn't we sign something back in 1990 [osce.org], agreeing to participate in monitoring of member states -- of which we are a member?

    I have a vague memory of this from the time of the signing -- and I don't think I liked the idea of allowing 'international' monitoring of our elections. Yet the agreement was signed.

    Is it 'binding'? I doubt it. I doubt it was ever ratified by congress...

    While it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I don't think it's THAT big of a deal -- at
    • Didn't we sign something back in 1990, agreeing to participate in monitoring of member states -- of which we are a member?

      Who is "we"? Did Congress agree to it? If not, it has no force of law. And even if it did, the federal government has no right to push it on the states.
      • Presumably the Senate ratified the treaty. Not so?

      • Who is "we"? Did Congress agree to it? If not, it has no force of law.

        As I suggested: Is it 'binding'? I doubt it. I doubt it was ever ratified by congress...

        Looking at a recent CNN article [cnn.com], I get the feeling this isn't as huge a deal as you suggest in your JE. It's happened at least two other times (Californa Gov recall for one).

        I cant argue that the Fed's should not be able to force this on the states. But I can ask IF the states will resist. I don't think they will.

        It still leaves a bad taste

        • Looking at a recent CNN article, I get the feeling this isn't as huge a deal as you suggest in your JE. It's happened at least two other times (Californa Gov recall for one).

          How is that relevant? Just because no one complained the last time ... ?

          I cant argue that the Fed's should not be able to force this on the states.

          Why not?

          I don't think they will.

          They should. I would.

          Other than a strong feeling of indignation, I can't really see a strong 'negative' here.

          I don't see how it is anything *bu

          • How is that relevant? Just because no one complained the last time ... ?

            Yes -- at least partially. My point was that your JE was implying that this monitoring was unprecedented. Perhaps you didn't mean to imply this -- and perhaps I'm reading in to your JE -- but I don't think its unreasonable to believe you were suggesting this monitoring was unprecedented. Particularly in reading your "THIRD" point.

            -- I cant argue that the Fed's should not be able to force this on the states.

            Why not?

            Because I bel

            • I didn't imply it, no. However, I was unware of anything in 2002, probably because there were only 10 observers nationwide. The California thing is a side point, I think, because it was (as best I can tell) at the invitation of the state of California, which has an absolute right to do it if they so choose.

              Because I believe, like you, that the feds should not be able to force this on the states.

              I think I must've misunderstood your sentence, which included a double negative and an apparently extraneous

  • If you have nothing to hide... (Score:3)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Tuesday August 10, 2004 @06:17PM (#9934730) Homepage Journal
    you have nothing to fear?

Slashdot Top Deals

grep me no patterns and I'll tell you no lines.

Close