The US is a permanent member of the UN and has ratified the UN charter. While anyone can say F off, it begs the question: what is the purpose of this organization if its members are only going to abide by whatever parts of their pledge which they were going to abide by without being a member? By this token, Iran should not be under UN sanctions right now. Perhaps you meant "The US, like every permanent member state, possesses the right to..."?
The only other countries' elections I think such indignities should be heaped upon are those where the UN is sending forces to secure and/or essentially occupy.
I don't think "occupy" is the right word. Occupy implies you have control and/or influence on the area.
Nope. The US accepts certain things because it chooses to accept those things, not because they're an UN member. A small but very important difference. What legitimacy? Like I said, a lot of people seem to think that the UN will work to defraud elections in favor of Obama, because he clearly is some unAmerican Muslim traitor. That's why they're worried. Obviously, that's ludicrous. But I'll openly admit I don't like the UN being here because they're not Americans, and while I guess I can tolerate it, the US should reserve the right to kick them all out of the country for any reason it feels like.
Exactly how I feel. I'll vote for Obama. I think Abbot is a nut. But I'm not thrilled with an international force looking over this country's shoulders during an election. We have a Constitution and a federal government, complete with an independent judiciary, to deal with that. Is it perfect? Of course not. It's never perfect anywhere. I don't think it justifies a UN presence though.
Max, just wait lol. You think this is bad? Wait until the UN gets signatures on Internet control legislation, financial transaction taxes, etc.
I disagree entirely. The amount of garbage that happens in Texas elections is attrocious. Texas's sheer size and the lack of funding for election enforcement and protection creates ripe conditions for fraud. And this isn't just Republicans defrauding democrats. Go to the border counties and see how elections are run. Every polling location breaks dozens of election laws there and they're all tilted towards democrats. Harris County itself has a terrible record. We deserve to be monitored because our state government doesn't give a damn about election protection. Until our idiot attorney general and secretary of state decide to care about properly run elections (and not stupid nonsense like voter ID), then please send in more UN monitors. Our government deserves to be embarrassed by UN monitors. We're awful at running elections in Texas and our government has taken no interest in rectifying that. And it doesn't help that we have a history of election fraud that goes back to Texas joining the union.
We have a federal government for that. I don't get how the UN has a place in it. I'm unaware of any treaty we've signed that gives UN authorities a chance to oversee US elections. If the UN were committing forces here to keep the peace during a volatile election cycle, I'd get it. But that's not the case. There is US law regarding elections in the US. We have a federal government and independent judiciary to deal with that.
A long history of voter initmidation and discrimination in the south necessitating passage of the Voting Rights Act? Check Stolen presidential election in 2000? Check A growing trend toward laws promoting voter suppression? Check Growing trend toward gerrymandered districts in opposition to the Voting Rights Act requirements for preclearance? Check We don't need no stinking UN oversight...
Doesn't matter whether or not the UN is overseeing anything. The UN is utterly incompetent and bureaucratic as is. Now imagine it trying to do anything with us and our allies vetoing every action.
We need a strong judiciary...not the United Nations. And I'll take issue with the idea that there wasn't due process and/or there was a stolen election in 2000. But the UN isn't a supporter of any body of law....we have United States law regarding elections. A UN presence has zero place in that. We are sovereign after all. Having said that...i just read about it and it's pretty clear that these guys are NOT monitors. I was speaking out of ignorance earlier. Given what they're actually here for, I don't think it's a big deal at all.
OSCE really isn't a UN group, "UN recognized" is a much better way to put it. I know that the populist angle makes it easy for lazy journalists to write this story that way (and horrible headlines, jesus), but it's basically an IGO relic from the Cold war (sort of like a civilllian NATO lite). I guess it's too complicated to explain to people what OSCE is so they just go with "UN". And it worked...see this whole thread from being about UN interference. So here it is in big letters for everybody, liberal, conservative - OSCE IS NOT THE UN SO STOP TALKING ABOUT THE UN OBSERVING ELECTIONS OR THE US OBLIGATIONS TO THE UN ALL OF YOU PLEASE BEFORE I GO DROP KICK A NARWHAL
Actually the Feds really dont do that. Elections are left to the states for the most part. The Feds dont allocate budgets for poll watching and fraud monitoring on such a local level. The only federal statutes on elections are the 15th amendment, the Voting Rights Act and a few other tidbits here and there. Our system of elections is designed to grant states and local governments the ability to manage their own elections. And none of that federal legislation actually deals with election fraud and election protection. And you can talk all you want about governments and courts enforcing election law but when you have a state government that allocates nothing for election protection outside of passing idiotic mandates like Voter ID laws, then I have little respect for our system. Our system works when governments take an interest in enforcing the laws but when they dont bother to even check for violations, how can you even bring up a lawsuit? (It also doesn't help that the Democratic Party in Texas isn't organized enough to properly monitor elections either) Look I'm also not cool with the foreign organizations watching elections but I wont respect Abbott's huffing and puffing about election monitors until he decides to properly monitor elections. They're just going to write a report complaining about terrible elections that we already know about
1) Yes, and it accepted the conditions which come with being a permanent member of the UN. If I sign on to your set of conditions for being a member of your organization, and then I tell you to F off whenever I don't like one of those pre-agreed conditions, then I am breaching the agreement between us. Perhaps you personally don't believe that nations have to respect treaties which they ratify, but it would just be your personal opinion. 2) Exactly. How do you think that happened? Why would you expect Iran to honor the conditions which come with being a member of the UN if you are kicking around its legitimacy like this? 3) Why don't you like it? So what if they're not American? What if all the individuals they sent were American? The US should reserve to kick them out for any reason it feels like, but likewise the UN should reserve the right to kick the US out of the UN for doing so? Why not leave the UN? Why be a part of the UN? If this is the line you're taking, then what you're telling me is that the UN is essentially a US (among 4 others) dominated organization which is used to give a mask of international legitimacy to arbitrary wishes of the powerful states. Is that what it still is? This is a declaration of war on everyone if I've ever seen one.
The UN serves two real purposes. One is to be basically a diplomatic club, where countries can actually talk to each other beyond an embassy-host nation conversation or in occasional conferences. This is very useful for all the states - if something like that had been around in August 1914, the Great War would likely not have happened, as you wouldn't have had the massive miscommunications which occurred throughout Europe in the aftermath of the Archduke's death. In addition, the answer to your second question is frankly, yes. The UN is an avenue where strong countries dominate the weak countries without having to resort to war, a beneficial relationship for both sides as really no one gains through war. I mean, it is patently obvious - why the heck would a strong country join if it couldn't do that? That's why the League fell apart, after all. A bunch of nobodies tried to tell Japan or Italy or even the United States what they could and couldn't do, and the obvious response of those countries was "screw you, you can't tell me what to do, I'm going home." I know the idea must shock such a humanist like yourself, Mathloon, but you really need to accept the idea that all countries are NOT created equal. Btw, if the UN didn't kick out a small African country almost twenty years ago that committed rampant genocide and even killed UN soldiers in the process, then I don't think it will kick out the US over some election monitoring junk.
^ ok one more time you goofballs THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UN OSCE is a different IGO entirely. To even describe it as un affiliated is misleading.
So, threads aren't allowed to branch out into different topics? I'm perfectly of what you're saying, Sam, but neither Mathloon nor myself are really focusing on the whole election observer thing anyways at this point. Perhaps I could create a new thread, but I can't be really bothered.
The executive branch can't ratify international treaties unilaterally , it requires a 2/3 majority by the senate, which is pretty much impossible these days. You might want to learn how our government works before spreading your ignorance. You should also check which countries haven't ratified the treaty while you are at it, because the US is with fine company there.
