Does the US Need Election Observers?
The services of elections observers are now used more than ever around the globe. They come from the United Nations, regional institutions, individual states, and non-profit/non-governmental organizations like the Carter Center. What exactly do these observers do? Basically they observe the election cycle from start to finish and publish reports about their findings. The reports can then be used politically to either praise or attempt to compel states into truly democratizing. Observers have no authority – real or perceived. That’s if they’re even allowed entry into the country they are tasked with observing. According to the Economist (Politics this week: 17th - 23rd November 2007) Vladmir Putin’s government simply “denied visas to foreign election-observers.” If you’d like to read an excellent first-hand account, from the TimesOnline, of an election observer who has observed elections in both Venezuela and Zimbabwe, simply click the previous link.
The U.S. fields election observers all over the world and accepts them at home. I’m curious to see if my readers see the necessity. Does the U.S. really need election observers? Surely our elections are among the most free and transparent in the world, but haven’t we had some glitches in the past few years that could easily be used by our adversaries (or those states that we are trying to open up and democratize) to cast doubt on our system as a whole? Does anyone remember the fiasco surrounding the 2000 U.S. Presidential election? I remember sending my mother a quote from a French observer prior to the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. He said that he “would be observing and would judge whether or not Ohio conducted fair elections.” This did not sit well with my mother the horse-rancher, super-patriot, and lover of all things American (I cannot print her reply to his quote here.)
Foreign Election Observers
Here’s the question:
I look forward to seeing the results. Do me a favor too. After you vote, post a quick comment as to why you voted that particular way. The Chief of Staff will consolidate the results and comments into a summary post. Thanks for helping him.
About the Author: Randall H. Miller is an American educator/blogger. He is also a former U.S. Army officer (82nd Airborne) with a M.A. in Diplomacy (focusing on International Terrorism) and a B.A. in Criminal Justice. Use the form on the right to sign up for the "Friday Morning Fix” and other timely updates. The words and ideas expressed here are 100% his own and not those of his employers or affiliated organizations.
RHM
| Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
I voted “yes” because it’s ridiculous to expect all other “democracies” around the world to welcome observers and then reject them in the world’s only super power as if our system is perfect.
Prediction: most of those who vote “no” won’t bother posting their reasoning. Just a hunch.
lapaix
| Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
If you read the Brad Blog, it is very clear why we need observers. Our voting system is very far from perfect.
Alexandra | Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I voted yes because even though I’m not very familiarized with the american voting history, I think that no matter how prosperous and democratic a country may be it will never be completely perfect. This includes the electoral process.
raymi | Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I voted “yes”. One thing is to be a super power both culturally and economically and another thing is to be perfect. The first can be achieved, the latter does not exist and it´s better to be safe than to be sorry. Just an honest opinion.
scootertrash
| Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
How many who voted here have ever participated in a U.S. election?
RHM
| Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
RHM (has his hand raised)
lapaix
| Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
(Raising hand) Every election since I was old enough to vote!
AlwaysAwake | Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Yes because Karl Rove and his staff conspires with Diebold to “fix” voting machines, and has other tricks to skew the results by as much as 12%, according to knowledgable sources.
Luli | Jul 28, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I voted yes, because there is simply no good enough reason by keeping them from joining the ‘democratic’ process.
in the end no matter how democratic and equal a government is, it will have its flaws
fairley7 | Jul 29, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
The 2000 Florida election was a total travesty. Too bad there were no foreign observers to raise a stink like the US media and the Democratic Party should have.
The 2004 Ohio election stank: The exit polls differed significantly from theofficial results, an outcome that exit pollsters couldn’t explain. In the Ukraine, when something similar happened, people took to the streets and demanded a new, honest election. Here, the votes are counted by Diebold machines — black boxes with proprietary software. Diebold’s president said in 2003 he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” How much more blatant can corruption be before people wake up???
RHI
| Jul 29, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
@ Always Awake
You are an idiot. We need observers to keep people like you from voting.
gaby
| Jul 29, 2008 | Reply Vote: 
0 
0
If you have nothing to hide, just let them come. I voted yes!
Joseito | Jul 29, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
Did you say “observers”? I wish it was that easy. Observers would be useless here.
Hey, RHI, who’s the idiot now? Read on:
Dear Attorney General Mukasey:
We have been confidentially informed by a source we believe to be credible that Karl Rove has threatened Michael Connell, a principal witness we have identified in our King Lincoln case in federal court in Columbus, Ohio, that if he does not agree to “take the fall” for election fraud in Ohio, his wife Heather will be prosecuted for supposed lobby law violations.This appears to be in response to our designation of Rove as the principal perpetrator in the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act/RICO claim with respect to which we issued document hold notices last Thursday to you and to the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform.
Adrielle Perdomo-Berrido | Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I have voted before… and i voted for only Ohio and Florida. Why? To be funny, i guess. But honestly, why should we exclude ourselves from everyone else. If we send observers to other countries how can we be that snobbish! Really!
Charles Bradford | Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I believe that the practice of election observers should be worldwide, and be given more of a status that could actually audit and verify that the results are exactly what the voters decided to the point of enforcing the will of the voters. I have voted in every election since 1988
Kenza | Jul 30, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
If you’ve got nothing to hide….
TO | Aug 2, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I voted “Yes” but under the condition that US taxpayers do not foot the bill.
Charles | Aug 4, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I voted No.
I don’t want sources from outside of our country involved in our elections. In fact, I can’t think of a single reason that a country would want to allow people from other nations to “observe” the fairness of their elections.
What is the point behind the idea? I must be missing it.
The observers have no power to do anything, even if they find that the election was not up to par, they likely have no way to provide real proof that things didn’t go as they should, as I don’t see anyone giving them access to real data. So basically it would be their word against the word of the people running the election.
And why would anyone trust the word of a foreign election observer over the word of the people put in place to run the actual election?
I would certainly take the word of my countryman over the word of some “independent” election observers.
But even if the election observers were correct in saying that something went amiss during the election process, then it would be and indeed it should be the job of Americans to stand up and say that and to then do something about it.
Vanessa | Aug 7, 2008 | Reply Vote:
0 
0
I vote YES,
I agree with RHM, why not have observers?
There is no such thing as a perfect election, well only the prepared by the great students of the Community for Learning