Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

The difference in how the media phrases it ("how dare they try and monitor our election. We merely want to observe theirs!") is a pretty interesting point. Which like I said is a distinction in English so it's fairly certain that distinction is occurring on our end, not theirs.

I suppose there COULD be a confusion or mis-distinction between the english words observe and monitor, but you'd think that the diplomats would know otherwise or at least ask for a clarification if they really only wanted to observe, which btw, they do have a channel for doing so.

edit: was half expecting Reelya or someone else to post inbetween, heh.

[Reelya]

I'm calling that out as a made up distinction. Point me to a citation explaining the difference between an observer and a monitor. I'll retract the claim if a citation exists, but other than that, I'm calling BS on this.

e.g. most international English press is calling them Russian "observers" as is the Washington Post. It's the more sensational American press which is pushing the term "monitor" hard on this story.

In wikipedia, "election observer" redirects to "election monitor", and that page refers to them as observers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_monitoring

So, yes, they are exactly the same thing and you're being played like a fiddle by the media if you buy their spin.

[smjjames]

http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/archive/questions/replies/234934798

Maybe one of our Russian friends can see how the Russians themselves are saying it? I'd go and use google translate, but it might mangle the difference between the Russian word for monitor and observe and the english counterparts.

[Wolfhunter107]

I'm calling that out as a made up distinction. Point me to a citation explaining the difference between an observer and a monitor. I'll retract the claim if a citation exists, but other than that, I'm calling BS on this.

e.g. most international English press is calling them Russian "observers" as is the Washington Post.

In google, "election observer" redirects to "election monitor"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_monitoring

Here's your citation.

Also, I fail to see how coups that happened over thirty years ago, in a completely different geopolitical environment,  have any relevance to what's happening today.

E: ninjaed by smjjames.

[Reelya]

The term is still spin in terms of this election. Where's a citation saying the Russians want control of the election process? The stories themselves seem to waver between terminology.

"We've allowed observers from overseas in the past from other countries, never from Russia,"

Toner noted that U.S. officials participated in a similar observation mission for Russia's parliamentary elections in September.

Kinda seems to contradict the spin we're seeing. And explains why Russia might find it surprising that America is rejecting them as observers. Russia was invited to participate in the OSCE observation, but complained about the level of access. Not because they couldn't "control" the election in some way, but probably because they were only allocated one person on that group out of 400+ observers.

[smjjames]

Also, I fail to see how coups that happened over thirty years ago, in a completely different geopolitical environment,  have any relevance to what's happening today.

Yeah, I know we did shitty stuff in the past, but like wolfhunter said, what does that have to do with now?

Reelya, try looking at it from our perspective, if you accused someone of meddling in your elections, would you allow them to be polling site monitors?

Also, if the Australians or the British wanted to monitor polling sites, we'd be cool with that, though there are some states that do bar foriegners from being poll site monitors.

The term is still spin in terms of this election. Where's a citation saying the Russians want control of the election process? The stories themselves seem to waver between terminology.

Have you even been paying attention to the whole hacks and the wikileaks stuff? They couldn't control the election even if they tried, but they are accused of trying to influence it.

[PTTG??]

Spoiler: Huh, apparently both sides have about the same proportion thinking violence is justified (click to show/hide)

[Wolfhunter107]

Well, that's pretty disturbing.

[Reelya]

smjames, wolf: i'm talking about current US policies. e.g there was a coup in Honduras in 2009, and the USA was basically alone in the world in publicly supporting the coup leaders. Also, the venezuela 2002 where the coup leading groups basically received the bulk of us aid money in the country both before and after the coup failed (a coup in which they abolished the constitution, parliament and the courts, and the army imposed a figure-head free to rule by decree while tanks shot protesters in the street). The US were major public cheerleaders for that coup, with US Congressmen describing the new military Junta as a return to freedom.

Also, Bush propping up the Colombian right-wingers from 2002-2008 at a time they've been accused of absolutely vile human rights abuses with thousands of known victims, and Bush called them the "Model Democracy" of Latin America.Then, Colombia 2008 emboldened by US support start bombing neighboring nations (Ecuador) and accusing all their neighbors of being filthy terrorists. Again, to applause from the political classes in USA, and only prevented by widespread international condemnation. This came very soon after Ecuador decided not to renew the lease on the US airbase in their nation.

And I'm leaving out a LOT of shitty stuff they've pulled in other nations in support of right-wing extremists and undermining elected governments (e.g. Bolivia).  Not to mention the whole regime-change things that got us into this huge mess worldwide.

These are all current things, completely leaving out the Reagan-era stuff.

[smjjames]

Spoiler: Huh, apparently both sides have about the same proportion thinking violence is justified (click to show/hide)

That thing needs way more information, like how many people polled and who were polled.

There is a Reuters/Ipsos survey (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/21/republicans-reject-us-election-result-hillary-clinton-win doesn't have an actual link to the survey though) that shows something similar, not a lot of people would be willing to resort to violence. I'm a bit surprised that more democrats would resort to arms than republicans, who are the gun-happy side.

Well, that's pretty disturbing.

There's a lack of A LOT of information in there, like how many people, who was polled, methodology, a link to the actual poll.....

@Reelya: It's RUSSIA SPECIFICALLY that we are objecting to. If any other countries have offered to monitor the elections like Russia wanted to, I haven't heard about it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Sadly, I think our insulation from violence makes people more willing to engage in it. It's even more disturbing how much I see pro-violence perspectives even among intellectuals. Not even getting into the gleefulness with which people definition creep "violence" to justify themselves.

[Criptfeind]

I don't get what your conclusion here is. The USA meddles in other countries in order to install right wing authoritarian regimes so we should be happy when another country tries to meddle in our country in order to install a right wing authoritarian regime?

Or is it just you taking a chance to service your dislike of the country and say "Fuck america, remember this bad thing they did!"? Cuz if so, yeah, the USA does some shitty stuff. Oh well. That doesn't mean we should let others do shitty things to us as well.

[Reelya]

How much history is there of election monitors in the USA? From what I can see, OSCE is sending ~440, and that's a 10-fold increase from 2012. Before that, I'm guessing "basically none" was the amount, although technically OSCE was first given access in 2002. Widespread OSCE access seems to only be starting with the current election.

So forgive me for not being up to date, basically. "Letting other people monitor our elections is just how we roll" isn't really a fair statement, if it's literally something you just started doing recently, mainly because you've started realizing it's not viable to demand access without also offering access.

But I think the thing with the Russians is that you guys were all over their polls in September. I don't like the Russians but I could understand being pissed if another country was that patronizing, "we can see yours, but fuck off you can't see ours".

[smjjames]

It's a recent thing, yes, and other nations have sent election monitors before, though it wasn't recieved very well by some groups http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263141-international-monitors-at-polling-places-draw-criticism-from-voter-fraud-group

So, it's not that we don't want election monitors, it's Russia specifically that we are saying 'bug off!' to.

OSCE has been doing it since 2002 at least http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/usa

[Reelya]

The fact was that they allowed you in to do the same thing recently. Equality doesn't work like you think it works.

The OSCE has been monitoring elections, but this next election represents a 10 x expansion to 400+. from 2002-2015 there has been less than 1 observer per state. Only the next one has enough observers for every state.