Comments on: Does the U.S. Need Election Observers?

By: Vanessa

Vanessa — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:37:32 +0000

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

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 02:26:18 +0000

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.

By: TO

TO — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:23:25 +0000

I voted “Yes” but under the condition that US taxpayers do not foot the bill.

By: Kenza

Kenza — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:05:52 +0000

If you’ve got nothing to hide….

By: Charles Bradford

Charles Bradford — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:21:52 +0000

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

By: Adrielle Perdomo-Berrido

Adrielle Perdomo-Berrido — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:27:53 +0000

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!

By: Joseito

Joseito — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:47:12 +0000

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.

By: gaby

gaby — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:23:06 +0000

If you have nothing to hide, just let them come. I voted yes!

By: RHI

RHI — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:27:29 +0000

@ Always Awake

You are an idiot. We need observers to keep people like you from voting.

By: fairley7

fairley7 — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:11:21 +0000

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???

By: Luli

Luli — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:43:29 +0000

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

By: AlwaysAwake

AlwaysAwake — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:48:24 +0000

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.

By: lapaix

lapaix — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:14:26 +0000

(Raising hand) Every election since I was old enough to vote!

By: RHM

RHM — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:51:24 +0000

RHM (has his hand raised)

By: scootertrash

scootertrash — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:49:54 +0000

How many who voted here have ever participated in a U.S. election?

By: raymi

raymi — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:30:17 +0000

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.

By: Alexandra

Alexandra — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:07:27 +0000

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.

By: lapaix

lapaix — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:00:57 +0000

If you read the Brad Blog, it is very clear why we need observers. Our voting system is very far from perfect.

By: RHM

RHM — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:44:32 +0000

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.