| steven787 said: At least on this site, there are liberals and conservatives who in many forums who have vehemently defended voters' rights. There are bad apples on both sides. I'm not talking about easily provable intentionally criminal actions like double voting, I'm talking about biased supervision. There's a big difference. I'm not accusing you of a crime, when I say you want to use political tools to suppress voters. Outside supervision would solve both problems. |
Your accusing me of wanting to use politcal tools to supress voting? I support voters rights when there is actual good reason to... also I don't know where you get the idea i'm particularly conservative. I'm liberal on pretty much every social issue, and i'm for universal government run healthcare. The only thing i'm "conservative on" is stopping wasteful spending and not spending more then the country makes except in times of dire emergency.
How would outside supervision solve both problems? What the observers focus on is that poll booths are up on time, that voters aren't frightened away and that the votes aren't changed or thrown away.
1) Booths are up on time. Hasn't been a problem.
2) Voters aren't frightened away. Hasn't been a problem.
3) Votes aren't changed. Hasn't been a problem... what votes count or don't count would still be in the hands of the judges and the elected officials, the only issue would be the UN observers would make sure that the blanket statement applies to equally (Someone isn't biasedly saying that one vote doesnt count when another does when they both look exactly the same.)
In which case it would make more sense to pair up everybody in "registed republican/registred democrat" pairs to check up on each other.
With a "voter/outside observer" your more likely to get a liberal bias don't you think?
Nor do i see how any of this would stop extra voting.
