Why should they?  It seems like nothing but a giant waste of time and money for the UN.

No election was stolen, no matter how some really leftwing people want to spin it... and that's coming from someone who's never voted for Bush.

I mean... what was the biggest voting problem we had this year?

Two black panthers with a weapon standing outside one polling place?

Do you have any idea how much money it would probably take to put international observers in every one of the US voting districts?  Or to have them travel from each one?

I'd disagree with this statement. Over the last 10 years there have been numerous problems reported at the polls, not to mention the debacle of the paperless electronic ballot (what idiot thought that one up) and frankly, after Florida in 2000, it's a little disturbing that Bush's first act as President wasn't to push for a more sound election process.

That's because it was a close election.  There's always going to be problems.  Things happen.

I mean look at this year.  Not close at all presidental wise... and basically heard nothing.

People will find reasons to complain when it's close.

Florida's only real problem is that for some reason they can't make a ballot that doesn't look confusing.

That and a little bit of false voter registration favoring the democrats.  Something like 70,000 i think who were felons who were voting illegally?

Florida needs a uniform ballot law.  But that really isn't the federal governments job.

Ohio had a bigger issue then Florida did in the 2004 election... and that just turned out to be Blackwell getting the paperless ballots because he owned stock in Diebold. (despite the fact everyone voted to have paper trail ones.)

Thank you. I appreciate your candor.

I don't agree. I don't think it's a waste of money. I think local supervision has mostly failed, and the federal government has done little to guarantee the votes of everyone, though I don't think it's any group in particular. Unnecessary random flaws and negligence are not acceptable.

Random flaws while unnecessary are unavoidable.  There is no such thing as a perfect election

The UN observers likely wouldn't of caught the illegally registered democrats.  Nor would they have been able to do anything about the ballots being really stupidly designed.

Elected and appointed officials and judges should not be the ones to decide to not count a perfectly good ballot with an obvious stray pen mark.

Edit:  Why is it that most people who are always trying to shoot down voter access and representation are conservative?  It's not all conservatives, I know; but it's hardly ever liberals who want to block others from voting or having their votes count.

That's because liberals perfer making up voters and vote twice under assumed names.

It's just been the tradition of both sides.  Dirty republicans try to come up with schemes to prevent voting (That guy who tried to make people who lost their homes ineligable to vote.)

Dirty Democrats try voter fraud (Flood the election offical with last minute mostly fradulent voter registration, register people ineligable for voting, try and vote under their names.)  Though apparently they did attempt a little of the stopping people from voting this current election.  (See armed black panthers above.)

It doesn't so much stop voter fraud, as make one kind of voter fraud harder, and the other kind easier.

UN observers would do... neither.

Still i'd say a judge is a better choice then international observers to decide what votes are coutned.  International observers are going to come in with their own biases as well.  The US being one of the biggest countries in the world... who gets elected is going to matter to their country a lot more then others... and lets be honest, the international community does have a wee bit of bias lately.

Perferably it would be if the elected officials would pass laws on what counts before the election and stuck to them however.

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.

1 - New York didn't have enough machines. Leon county Florida opened late.
2 - A really smart guy was telling me about Black Panthers at a polling place scaring off people.
3 - Throwing out someone's vote is just as bad as changing their vote.

If you have one democrat and one republican, it is likely they won't agree on a vote. So someone else makes the decision. There are other influeces, parties, and biases.

Outside supervision doesn't make the final decision, they ensure that a fair decision is reached by monitoring the process. Political parties, voters, and candidates shouldn't be the ones who have to pay to ensure the vote counts, the country as a whole has the responsibility to ensure everyone's votes count. A political candidate who doesn't have the financial backing isn't able to fight it.

This is actually a direct criticism of the whole system, a system that McCain designed and helped Obama to win. When a candidate is expected to spend millions on a campaign and ensuring fair elections, then the fair election under a secret ballot is already discredited. The whole system needs to be reworked and demonetized. I owned a business and love money but money shouldn't be so important in an election.