Clearly the people in Russia elected the party they wanted....now the losing team (1 party being communist) is bitching. And what is shocking is so is the United States and other Western democratic countries. I mean really, is the United States really going to bitch about the communist party NOT getting elected by the people? You would think after Bush's first election, the US would butt out of calling other elections 'rigged'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7126056.stm (one of many articles on the bbc)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7124585.stm



[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 8:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 7:55:05 PM

Russia didn't even allow US election observers into the country. From the sounds of it, massive fraud was going on, shit like ballot-stuffing and jailing dissenters.

There is no parallel between the US 2000 presidential election.

12/3/2007 8:07:24 PM

Quote :

"Russia didn't even allow US election observers into the country."

we should allow russian observers in in 2008 as a sign of good will

12/3/2007 8:08:33 PM

Russian and other international observers are always welcome into our country during election times.

12/3/2007 8:11:00 PM

^^^a rigged election is a rigged election.

its just like lying (actually it is lying). There are no 'white' lies.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ^]

12/3/2007 8:11:13 PM

^^ i did a little bit of research and your wide flung "always" is not justified

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 8:13 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 8:12:49 PM

Quote :

"Russian and other international observers are always welcome into our country during election times."

Actually they are not in some places. I remember in 2004 that OSCE (the election observer organization that we are a part of) sent some observers. It wasn't to make sure our elections were fair, but just to observe. However, some states' laws forbade them from being inside the polling site as they were not serving an electoral purpose inside the precincts.

Found an article via google search: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/3987655.stm

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 8:19 PM. Reason : /]

12/3/2007 8:13:58 PM

^ you know, it makes me wonder why Prawn Star would just go ahead and say that shit then

i mean, he doesn't know

fucking stupid

12/3/2007 8:15:26 PM

Quote :

"Russian and other international observers are always welcome into our country during election times."

So tell me what part of this statement is false?

Quote :

"Q: Bernard from Syosset, N.Y.: Has this administration actually invited international oversite of our national elections? If so, under what authority or mandate? Respectfully submitted by this Korean War veteran recipient of only one Purple Heart decoration. A: Jim Wilkinson, Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications: Bernard, Let me first begin by thanking you for your service in the Korean War -- which as you know is the "forgotten war" to many. Because people like you made sacrifices, people like me have a great nation to live in. Thanks. As to your question, here are some facts that I think will help. In Copenhagen in 1990 the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), agreed to allow fellow OSCE members to observe elections in one another’s countries. The U.S. is a member of OSCE. And just as it did for the Presidential elections in 1996 and 2000 – and the mid-term elections in 1998 and the 2002 elections -- the U.S. has invited an OSCE election observer team to observe this fall’s Presidential elections. The OSCE did not send observers in 1996, 1998 and 2000 although they were invited. The OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) did send election observers to Florida for the 2002 midterm elections, and to California for the 2003 gubernatorial elections. The 2002 election observation mission consisted of 11 international observers (and included one U.S. citizen) and met with the Federal Election Commission, staff of the Senate Rules Committee, the Helsinki Commission, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and representatives of civil society in Washington, D.C. In Florida, the mission met with the Assistant Secretary of State and the director and staff of the Division on Elections, county executives and Supervisors of Elections, representatives of the Republican and Democratic parties, and representatives of civic organizations with special interests in the election process. On Election Day, the Mission deployed teams in Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Hillsborough and Duval counties. In the past, the OSCE has observed French presidential elections (April-May 2002), Spanish parliamentary elections (March 2004), and U.K. elections for the Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (May and November 2003). The U.S. serves as a model for democratic systems and, as it has in the last two Presidential elections, wants to invite OSCE observers to view our free and fair elections. We are delighted to have our partners in the OSCE view our election process which serves as a model for other nations who seek to reform their systems to include free and fair elections. "

http://www.whitehouse.gov/interactive/wilkinson_osce.html

^ Who's stupid now?

fag

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 11:21 PM. Reason : 2]

12/3/2007 11:20:22 PM

biased website dude. Find me a more legitimate source then whitehouse.gov claiming how fair our elections are b.c of "observers"

When whitehouse.gov posted saddam had anal butt sex w/ osama and Iraq's nuclear missiles were pointed at granny's doorstep i'm sure you devoured every word, picked up your stars n stripes, and were like git-er-dun lets get them iraqi's in 2003.

Quote :

"The elections that are seen to be monitored are normally in countries where the democracy is seen as somewhat unstable and where there is a perceived threat that the election may be illegally influenced. A team of monitors observed the 2004 United States election, after concerns of voter inaccuracy in the 2000 U.S. election. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_observer

hate to say it but i trust wikipedia more then W's webpage.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 11:27 PM. Reason : l]

12/3/2007 11:24:40 PM

you're losing your mind, man

take a break. regroup. work on your analogies

12/3/2007 11:27:37 PM

There is an extremely high coincidence of murders related to reporters who cover stories unfavorable to the Putin administration (220 murders, only 6 have been solved in a country that solves 80% of their murders). Shows and media that are critical of United Russia have been taken off the air, and state owned oil company Gasprom has bought many of the stations these programs had aired on. Police and soldiers are used to arrest and intimidate dissidents. Employers tell their employees to vote for United Russia. People who are against Putin are painted as "anti Russian traitors" and "American agents". Its about voter suppression and a brutal campaign to silence political dissent.

I can hardly call that Russia electing the party they wanted. It was Russia electing the only party available. Don't fall into the fallacy of believing they have the same political freedoms or choices that we do. You honestly don't know enough about Russian politics to make an informed decision about this topic Golvoko. Its essentially the rise of totalitarianism and one party politics in Russia.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 11:31 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2007 11:28:31 PM

Golovko, I don't know what you're deal is. You foreign? Or just an idiot?

Were you the one that made such a big deal a while back about having a basque girlfriend? Because that would also explain a lot. Not because it would explain a lot in general, but merely from people of your...ah, shall we say...intellectual strata.

At any rate, do you know how we can tell that we don't have a horribly flawed democracy? The opposition isn't losing its shit in the street. There's some bitching, yeah, but nothing serious, nothing that can't be explained away by simply being upset at having lost. Gore contents himself with making jokes about 2000, and Kerry barely says anything at all.

Compare this to so much of the rest of the world, where a contest means blood in the streets. Where is that in the US? Do you think we are incapable of a proper riot?

A lot of things in this country are broken, and there are negative things that can be said about the voting process, mostly related to third parties. But at least among the frontrunners, American elections are fair.

12/3/2007 11:40:46 PM

Quote :

"Find me a more legitimate source then whitehouse.gov claiming how fair our elections are b.c of "observers""

How bout [NO]. Instead you should try a little reading comprehension. I never said anything about US elections being fair (hell, Mexico's electoral system is light-years ahead of ours), only that Russian and other international observers are always invited to monitor our elections.


They might not be allowed inside the polling station in every state, however, as Flyin Ryan pointed out^^^^^

12/3/2007 11:42:40 PM

Back to the topic of this thread.....

I sometimes wonder this question myself. A democracy is essentially rule by majority. It's essentially a giant ad populum argument; the correct choice of action is the most popular one. But this assumes that the people are (equally) educated enough to vote on a decision. What if the people are not all educated equally? What if the majority of people are not as intelligent or thoughtful compared to the minority? And even if everybody is equally intelligent, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll all agree on an issue.

In any case, the most popular rules are basically the ones that thrive in a democracy. By virtue of the system, the "will of the people" is considered to be right. But what if they aren't right? What if the majority of people make a decision that could be considered immoral or unethical, or suppose that the decision simply hurts them in the long run (but helps them in the short term, which is why the majority voted for it)? And I don't remember who said it, but there's a saying to the effect that, in a democracy, the people will vote themselves money out of the public treasury.

This is sort of off topic. The question is simply if a "fair" democracy can exist. On the one hand, it sucks to be you if you're on the losing side of the argument. Want to legalize drugs? Too bad, more than half of the population think drugs are evil! Think that current gun control laws are too strict? Better get used to it, the majority of people can't get enough of it! Short of unanimous agreement, it's impossible to please everybody in a democracy. There's not really any mechanism built in for compromise either; either one side wins or the other side does. There's no half-assing it. In that sense, democracies are inherently unfair. On the other hand, rule by popularity is simply the convention of the system. It makes it easier to make tough choices; just leave it up to each voter to decide. Whichever decision gets more votes is clearly the correct choice to make, because more people agree with it. Nobody has to argue or bitch about anything or make the issue complicated, it's simply left up to each individual.

Bottom line; I think the answer to your question is no. In a democracy, fairness is traded in for convenience.

12/4/2007 1:06:17 AM

^Fuck, man. Try reading the Constitution. People don't vote on issues (with initiatives and referendums being the exception), they vote for candidates who vote on issues.

This isn't a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy. A republic. And it is set up that way specifically because our founding fathers didn't expect the people to be educated on every issue.

12/4/2007 1:12:21 AM

^Read the post, he never even mentions American democracy, he's just discussing the fundamentals of a democratic system in general.

12/4/2007 1:15:06 AM

True, but there are no practicing direct democracies that I know of. Representative democracies with checks and balances do a lot to nullify the "tyranny of the majority" phenomenon that he is referring to.

12/4/2007 1:19:25 AM

Yup. Also, it just keeps the process efficient. Just think how busy the system would be if everyone voted on every issue that came up...

12/4/2007 1:22:01 AM

Quote :

"Golovko, I don't know what you're deal is. You foreign? Or just an idiot? Were you the one that made such a big deal a while back about having a basque girlfriend? Because that would also explain a lot. Not because it would explain a lot in general, but merely from people of your...ah, shall we say...intellectual strata. At any rate, do you know how we can tell that we don't have a horribly flawed democracy? The opposition isn't losing its shit in the street. There's some bitching, yeah, but nothing serious, nothing that can't be explained away by simply being upset at having lost. Gore contents himself with making jokes about 2000, and Kerry barely says anything at all. Compare this to so much of the rest of the world, where a contest means blood in the streets. Where is that in the US? Do you think we are incapable of a proper riot? A lot of things in this country are broken, and there are negative things that can be said about the voting process, mostly related to third parties. But at least among the frontrunners, American elections are fair."

LOL! what?

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM. Reason : . i'll stop there. learn to write, debate, and not attack other people with made up bullshit...]


something else I was thinking about was...is 4 years really long enough for a President to make a huge difference? Spends 1 year getting his act together, 2 years making mistakes and 1 year trying to get re-elected. Also, if the people elected such a great President that was truly good for this country, don't you think its within our right to keep him on for more than 2 terms if we so choose?

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 10:46 AM. Reason : .]

12/4/2007 10:42:52 AM

^^, ^^^ True enough. I forgot to add the disqualifier that ours isn't a true democracy, but a representative democracy as you mentioned. But some of the same problems still stand, no? The people will simply vote for the representative who promises to get them the most free shit, which is pretty much what happens now. Besides, what happens when the guy that people voted for turns out to not have all of their interests in mind, or none at all?

12/4/2007 10:51:55 AM

Quote :

"a rigged election is a rigged election."

Dude, what? Are you saying the 2000 election was rigged? Or that you disagree with the role of the electoral college?

12/4/2007 10:53:39 AM

Quote :

"Clearly the people in Russia elected the party they wanted....now the losing team (1 party being communist) is bitching. And what is shocking is so is the United States and other Western democratic countries. I mean really, is the United States really going to bitch about the communist party NOT getting elected by the people? You would think after Bush's first election, the US would butt out of calling other elections 'rigged'"

While I am of the general belief that the vast majority of the Russian people support the winning party, I am not convinced that it is 'Clear'. I dont think that we will ever witness a 'fair democracy' but there are certainly principles that make some democracies and elections more fair than others. The parliamentary elections this past weekend in russia were far from any reasonable standard of fairness.

Quote :

"^^ i did a little bit of research and your wide flung "always" is not justified"

As has already been mentioned, the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights has held a number of election observation missions in the United States including the 2004 Presidential Election. In previous elections, Russia has allowed similar missions within its borders. However this year they severely limited the size of the mission making it virtually ineffective and to add insult to injury they delayed the visa applications of the observers to the point that they had to withdraw the mission.

Quote :

"a rigged election is a rigged election."

In a sense this is true in that any rigged election hurts the democratic process. However, rigged elections can differ greatly in every way from degree to which it influences the outcome, who is perpetrating the rigging, how it is being carried out, etc.

Quote :

"biased website dude. Find me a more legitimate source then whitehouse.gov claiming how fair our elections are b.c of "observers""

I really dont think that he was making any statements about the fairness of the elections in the US, only that the US welcomed foreigners to observe the process. Having worked many times as an observer with the OSCE, I can assure you that the mere presence of observers does not guarantee free and fair elections. In fact, I have witness blatant and open election violations while working as an observer.

Quote :

"It wasn't to make sure our elections were fair, but just to observe"

Sure, there is a distinct difference between election observation and election monitoring. In most cases the OSCE engages in election observation, but the purpose is to observe whether or not the process is as free and fair as claimed and make recommendations.

12/4/2007 12:10:42 PM

Quote :

"Dude, what? Are you saying the 2000 election was rigged? Or that you disagree with the role of the electoral college?"

no, i'm just saying that tampering with elections is just that. There are no degrees to it. Its screwing with democracy and everything it stands for. I don't care if you fixed 100 votes or 1,000,000.

Quote :

"In a sense this is true in that any rigged election hurts the democratic process. However, rigged elections can differ greatly in every way from degree to which it influences the outcome, who is perpetrating the rigging, how it is being carried out, etc."

how so? I can see a scenario of a potentially bad candidate gets the popular vote but it would be better for everyone if he didn't win. But again, thats not what the people want. So its against what a real democracy is all about.

[Edited on December 4, 2007 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

12/4/2007 2:28:28 PM

What about the congressman who on a vote audit found to have had votes cast by dead people and family pets.

12/4/2007 2:29:40 PM

Nah.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities"

12/4/2007 7:42:30 PM

democracy is a bad idea because the individual is subjected to the tyranny of the majority

if it were truly free there would be an option to opt out of the state

12/5/2007 11:57:07 AM