July 02, 2004

• *standing applause* I love it, too.
• Uh... *collapses with laughter*
• Given the dire voting situation in the US, this is a relief. Not sure how this will affect the Diebold factor, though.
• Yeah, I'm completely in favor of this too. If memory serves, Bush refused to let inspectors check things out after the 2000 elections. If it further serves, he was the first president in history to do so. On the other hand, they're going to spin this mother big time: "It seems our opponents want to let the UN come in here and tell us how to run things in our own country..." etc. There's going to be some jingo-screaming about this.
• Considering Kofi Annan's having trouble with the word genocide when it comes to Darfur, I'm not sure this is all that encouraging. There may be voting issues here in the US, but the UN is hardly the body politic to police it.
• Sorry, the Bush Administration won't even let the UN observers into the country.
• Hopefully the UN says yes. I'm betting they want a new president just as bad as we do, after all that happened these past few years with GWB. That said, how do you think the pro-GWB populace will react? Do you think there will be some "this is our country, stay out of it" attitudes going on? Could it be deemed as none of their business, and "not their place"? I know there's been some anti-UN attitudes here, especially those pro-war people who were mad at the UN for asking the US to show some restraint in Iraq. As I mentioned in the Cheney thread, this is definitely not my area of expertise. If my comments come off as somewhat ignorant, well, I guess they are :o/
• Everybody's been sitting on their hands when it comes to Sudan, f8x. The situation's been terrible since last year, and it's only now that any governmental or international body - as opposed to charities, pressure groups, and risk assessment agencies - have started making any noises about it. This is, perhaps, largely because the media have finally started paying attention - but even then, what should be front page news is getting relegated to the middle. [This is from everything I've seen, at least. Perhaps you can correct me...] The UN monitoring votes thing - good idea, and it's not that odd. Most democracies wouldn't have a problem with it, and a lot of democracies do it.
• f8mulder, if the entire UN should be dismissed because Annan didn't call something "genocide" then how about this adminstraion's cozyness with the Saudis who regularly torture political prisoners? W and his dad regularly call this opressive kingdom "our good friends". Should I bring up the majority of September 11th hijackers' citizenship? With friend's like these, who needs enemies? I trust the UN far more than I do this administration.
• Shit. The situation in Sudan has been terrible for years.
• Granted. I'm just saying let's not hold the UN up as a beacon of light in a dark world.
• True. But by your standards, we shouldn't hold anyone up, since the Sudan situation has been ignored for over a decade, and largely public relation bills have passed Congress to try to force a resolution. Now, if you could show me where the UN election monitoring system runs into the same credibility gap as their handling of Sudan, I might be inclined to agree with you.
• No, true - but it is an organisation from which one can normally find an unbiased observer or perspective, if one desires such a thing. Of course, one can also find a biased perspective too, if that's what's wanted instead.
• let's not hold the UN up as a beacon of light in a dark world that raise the interesting point: does such a thing exist? how about the carter center? switzerland is traditionally neutral. could such a group start there?
• Well, I don't know much about other possible beacons of light. shawnj, good point. I'm still rather skeptical, however, of the UN's involvement. There doesn't seem to be a demonstratable need for outside involvement...
• Are you sure? Our current voting system is horrible, prone to errors, and does not insure that everyone has a voice. Having UN oversight might go a long way towards that goal.
• As I said in my first comment, I appreciate that we do have voting issues. However, I just don't see it as a UN problem. I hear we also have a problem with immigration--should we bring the UN in on that as well? For some problems, I think it's okay to let the country handle it.
• While generally I can agree and sympathize with the sovereignty issue that is involved with UN involvement, I think that if you have consistent and persistent problems that the government of said state have been unable to correct for more than two election cycles, outside intervention becomes justified. With our election system, we have had persistent problems for as many, many years ("Vote early, vote often!") and have been innefective in stemming those problems. The UN might be the element which can correct these issues. Normally, I'm with you. The country should be able to handle it. The problem is that we have shown a systematic failure when it comes to non-civil rights based voting reform.
• Not sure how this will affect the Diebold factor, though. I was wondering the same thing too. About three months ago I got to sit down with a software engineer who's now an activist and had him explain the system behind these machines, from input to output and all the shady crap that can happen in between. I got a good story out of it, but I was very, very disturbed, especially when I called NYS election officials and was basically told the state has no choice but to comply with the implementation of these machines (or lose significant $$$ in federal aid). Sadly, it seems like politicians, at least here locally, see nothing wrong with "trying out" these machines. One pol I spoke to seemed to be of the opinion that if one election got botched it was no big deal and the gov could always return to the vintage machines for the next election. Yeah right. Ain't gonna happen, especially after so much money has been invested in the machines. With all that said, I have no expectations that the U.N. will make any difference even if we did allow them to supervise elections.
• I just don't see it as a UN problem. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that (mostly as a formality) the UN always looked at our elections after the fact to make sure that everything was on the up-and-up. That may have come straight from my rectum, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that we always invited them in before 2000.
• Our current voting system is horrible, prone to errors, and does not insure that everyone has a voice. Having UN oversight might go a long way towards that goal. Having UN oversight doesn't guarantee things are going to get any better. In fact, it may make it worse because there are so many polling places in the US. The UN doesn't just send one guy - they send in teams to monitor the polling places. Can you imagine the problems inherent in trying to find several hundred thousand multi-person teams to monitor not only polling places, but precinct houses, counties, state and federal offices? Even if you do this in the swing states alone, it's going to be a nightmare. Second, while the US kind of likes the notion of the UN, we can't stand the actual UN. I don't even want to imagine the seven kinds of merry hell that would be raised if some of our more "patriotic" citizens saw UN monitors standing around the polling place. Can you say "lynchmob"? Can you say "Oh, my freaking God?" Even putting a military presence (which is what it would take) around those polling places would be unthinkable, because when push comes to shove, we are the UN's military wing. Our system is falling apart because people don't vote. Period. Voters claim that it is because their votes don't matter - no one listens anyway. But it's not the government's job to make sure you vote. They can make it convenient, they can make it quick, but the one thing they cannot and should not do, is make you vote. You have to do that yourself. If the wrong guy wins, or even the way wrong guy (like Bush), you just have to suck it up and deal. Or do like everyone else, and start a blog.
• For voting problems, I think Spade and Farley are the guys to address them.
• the UN in this case would at best be a band-aid. The disease wouldn't be corrected. The bright side would be those countries in the UN would get to see democracy in action.
• Some peoples votes don't matter.
• Sorry, the Bush Administration won't even let the UN observers into the country. We should listen to wendell. This plan doesn't have a chance of succeeding, because our government will impede it wherever possible.
• I recall an interview with Jimmy Carter after the 2000 election where he was asked about Florida. His response was that if Florida was a country that asked him to monitor the election, he would refuse because it did not meet the minimum requirements for a fair election.