ELECTION MONITORING

NROTC ^ | 8/9/04 | Jonah Goldberg

[swilhelm73]

ELECTION MONITORING [Jonah Goldberg]

Obviously I think there's a lot of silliness in the election-monitoring of Florida stuff. But in generaln I don't understand why Republicans and the Bush White House ran away from the issue of electoral reform. Democrats have this myth that if elections were run more honestly and accurately in this country that Democrats would gain. One can see why they'd think that in the wake of Florida (let's not start that argument again). But the obvious fact, it seems to me, is that if every vote was counted -- and counted only once -- Democrats would suffer big time. They'd come out poorly in states like Arizona where, allegedly, the Democrats bus indians from one polling station to another; in Lousiana where the Democrats do the same with blacks and in various major cities like St. Louis where the Democrats play games by extending voting times in certain areas.

To me it's a lot like DNA testing for people on death row. I think it should be free to anyone who might be helped by it. Why? Because wherever DNA might be relevant it will in all likelihood prove the guilt of the convict. And, if in the off chance it proves his innocence, great. Who wants to execute innocent people? That may just boost the public's confidence when it comes time to fry the guilty.

Let's have serious electoral reform, which would include making it much harder to vote in different locations, with bad ID and without proof of citizenship. How, exactly, would that hurt the GOP?

Posted at 10:47 AM

[greyfox]

Election monitoring in the Us of A? This could only come from a desperate democrat. Once you free the Genie it may come back to haunt you forever. I just cannot imagine the
U.S having monitors for their elections, The Dems have finally reduced us to third world status.

[rebel_yell2]

If monitoring will help reduce Dim voter fraud in the big cities, it is WELL WORTH IT!

[erik22lax]

this is just a reaction known as SORELOSERITIS

[greyfox]

Are you suggesting that the United States is incapable of
conducting a fair election? What is the next institution to
require outside monitoring? America cannot run it's own affairs? this is preposterous.

[rebel_yell2]

I think that the results speak for themselves. When precints report more than 100% of registered voters have cast ballots, as happened in Philly and Baltimore during the 2000 election, you can draw your own conclusions. I would welcome ANY observers to such precincts. Get off your high horse and smell the nasty roses of our inner cities.

[greyfox]

The system you describe sounds like an abuse waiting to happen. Transporting people from one polling place to another to vote more than once, something very very wrong here. Are you quite sure there are no methods in place to
eliminate multiple voting? Are you talking about a system of selecting your highest political officials with a system like you describe? The most advanced country in the world
with a third world system of voting......unbelievable!

[swilhelm73]

Well, there is no question that all sorts of voting irregularities happen in American elections.

Linda Sanchez almost certainly beat Bob Dornan via election fraud, and there have been any number of other elections likely decided by fraud: Landrieu in her first election, JFK, etc...

Look, for example, at Mike Moore. He was (is?) registered to vote in two states. There is *nothing* to stop him from doing so.

The Reps have halfheartedly made a number os suggestions to improve the system but it has gone nowhere...

[greyfox]

How will monitors prevent multiple voting in states where all one needs is a drivers license in order to vote? Voting fraud can go on right under their noses.