Would anyone here know why we refuse to send international observers to some countries ?
Would anyone here know why we refuse to send international observers to some countries ?
I've seen it for Venezuela and Syria, but i'm sure i could find this for quite a lot of other countries.
We're usually saying that it would legitimize these elections, and are asking instead that the opponents boycott them. We can continue to criticize the biases surrounding the votes instead of the votes themselves if that's the problem.
Some leaders may believe that the processus of elections is biased because unjust external pressures are putting a strain on the country and strengthening the opposition ; but, despite that, some of them are still asking for international observers, which could be an occasion to seize, instead of refusing to send them yet accusing them of cheating.
So i wonder if i'm missing something by thinking that we don't want to legitimate the whole process by counting the votes.
For them it seems like it would be the same if they're already asking, but for us it could open our societies to accusations of double standards since it could be argued that our own elections aren't perfect.
In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn't be useful in any way, and doesn't matter, i should probably delete this post but i'm leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it.
If you had the initial thought that international observers won't prevent cheating : they would count in double the votes, with the venezuelans of their area, and have everything under their eyes from the beginning of the vote to the end of the official count, so i don't see how cheating would be possible.
For now, our version is that they're miscounting the votes, yet we're refusing to send such observers.
We’re usually saying that it would legitimize these elections
Imagine the audacity of the US to say they legitimized an election when one of their own parties, previous president, and losing candidate can't legitimize the past election and is already refusing to legitimize the next one.
Maybe we should some to their next one to make sure it's actually democratic
If he's re-elected then perhaps that international observers with an absence of electronic voting could be approved by both sides and prevent such doubts from being formulated again. Observers may be considered humiliating for a great power but could perhaps be generalised to every representative republic, if only in order to prevent such excuses ?
I hate the implication that there are two sides. While I agree that US politics has broken into two teams, I think the ideal situation would be that there is only one team (the country as a whole), and that the voting system would not need observers from the candidates' parties to ensure that no one each cheating. Instead, every single one of us should be expected to be vigilant and protect democracy as a fundamental virtue of our society.
My personal belief is that having someone from the Trump party is basically having someone with increased access to cheat. They are not trying to enforce democracy. They are trying to dismantle it so that they could stay in power. Trump doesn't believe the election was a fraud based on objective information and rational logic. He believes it because he is severely mentally ill and needs the delusion to avoid a deep sense of shame and despair. As such, there is nothing anyone could say for him to accept that the election is valid.
If we were going to accept that Trump will not be punished for his crimes nor go away, then we need to find an avenue for him to be able to come up with a delusion that maintains that he "won". Not that he won the election per say, but that he "won the battle between him and Joe Biden" and "is better than him". Again, ideally, we wouldn't want to enable a narcissistic personality, but if we were going to, then we would have to find a way to do so and maintain democracy at the same time. Having observers will not achieve this because his personality holds that he is better, so any facts that refute this will be dismissed.
Do you think America is some bastion of fairness and truth? Most of the countries that are stricken with corruption and poverty are that way because the USA meddled with their shit.
The USA should stay the fuck in its own country, and stop influencing the weak countries of the world.
I mean if you send them to Russia to check that the next Putin vote count is "correct", then it would just make the whole voting farce somewhat credible.
Because the votes are counted in a wrong way, or because he got rid of the opposition, or because he's controlling the medias ? The first one is false, even western surveys confirmed his support, but the second and third one could be debated, yet it gets interesting since we could throw the same accusations at our own countries(, it's very difficult to launch a new political party in France since you need an agreement from hundreds of mayors who reserve them to mainstream candidates, and almost impossible to be known without at least a bit of support from mainstream(legacy) medias, Internet could perhaps change that one day but we're not (t)here yet).
You're changing the question here, all democratic countries has their flaws for diverse reasons (France would be that as there is a two round system, lots of small parties would undermine the democratic outcome, I guess. Sometimes it's history, almost always it can be better. But we're democracies at least).
Russia is a dictatorship.
They want Legitimacy and if we, the west, sends people, and even better, we send people and they find no errors (in the small thing they investigate because believe me, Russia won't allow us to send people checking out other things), that will bring Legitimacy to the dictatorship.
"We" meaning the US?
Which country is asking us to send observers and we're saying no?
I'm 100% sure for Venezuela and could find you the source, Europe said they didn't have time despite being asked more than 6 months prior to the elections(, and still having 1-2 months ahead of them).
For Syria i'm almost certain, but i think that i could find the same for Cuba, probably Zimbabwe and in any case i've read such suspicions about Russia and Iran, we even showed videos of a ballon in front of the c.c.t.v. for Russia, even if the surveys proved that V.Putin's support was/is legitimate, on which country would you like sources ?
In general, every government qualified as a "regime" is considered as cheating at elections, i don't see an exception.