1) New York didn't have enough machines because their government stupidly picked a bunch of crappy machines with high failure rates.

What would international observers due to stop the NY elections board from being idiots and forcing counties to pick between a bunch of bad choices?

Other then that we've got one county... out of over 3,000 that started late.  I wouldn't call that voter fraud, i'd call that a miracle.

2) At on polling place, and the police took care of it.  I mean, anyone somewhat frightened could of just called the police and been escorted in.  One polling place out of... tens of thousands?  Then someone else called in at Akron, because they felt intimidated because one of the cars in the parking lot had a confederate flag bumper sticker.  Some people are intimidated by bumper stickers... i mean how would international observers fix that?

3) I'd agree there but people really have little choice when the voter doesn't correctly follow the instructions.

I agree with your general critcisms but UN observers wouldn't fix any of it.  The real problem is how to stop money from playing a roll without stopping freedom of speach.

It's not voter fraud, it's a failure of our democratic system.

UN (with the US) picks inspectors to work with local and federal officials.

Off topic, but in regards to the money and accessibility issue, if you wanna continue this PM and we'll start a new thread. We've gone a little too far off topic:

I think the internet is a big part of the solution. Have one ".gov" where the links to ALL the presidential candidates who made it on the ballot in at least one state are on the front page.

They'd be allowed to post videos, audio, etc. in any format they like but no paid advertising.

The current system is designed to prevent third party candidates from winning, and it is unlikely that that will ever change. If they make it on a state ballot they should be allowed to debate.

None of this will ever happen.

That would work for me.  Excet i don't see how it'd stop 504's and the like. Then again I guess the telvision is already compromised freedom of speach wise due to the FCC.  Which is a department that seems unconsititutional and i'd like rid of.

I still say the inspectors wouldn't be able to do anything, nor would they really even find any fault with anything based on our election laws however.  I don't see it as accomplishing anything.

Inspectors are basically the ones with the pots and pans on the outside, when they see something fishy they start banging them together. They don't have to be UN inspectors, but the UN already has a system in place.

Before the Florida fiasco, states had very clear guidlines on "spoiled" ballots. Of course they vary by states.

My government teacher in HS was also our county commisioner, and he explained how voting really works.

If the ballot says fill in the circle with pen, you fill in the circle with pen. Ballots must be filled in correctly to count.

You put a check in the box, the ballot is spoiled.

X in the box, ballot is spoiled.

Circle the candadites name instead, the ballot is spoiled.

Stray mark near another box, the ballot is spolied.

Attempt to make a correction, the ballot is spoiled.

Use pencil, the ballot is spoiled.

If you as the voter make a mistake and spoil your ballot, it is up to you to get a new ballot.

stof: Quick question. Is the U.S. similar to Canada in that if someone accidently spoils their ballot, they are entitled to receive another? I know it's always going to hit a fraction of the voting population, but what prevented any of these people from saying "oops, I made a mistake, can I have another ballot please?"

In my state, you are allowed to request a new ballot due to spoiling twice. So if you make a mistake three times you are out of luck.

stof: does the U.S. allow observers from the political parties to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen?

In my state, take for example a vision impaired voter. He is to be assisted by both a democrat and a republican observer at the voting booth.

I mostly agree tyrannical, in Florida we had a really smooth year. They made it so the voter puts the ballot right in the scanner. If it gets rejected, it gets rejected right in front of the voter they can destroy that ballot and get another. Not every state got to do that though and in FL blank spots don't make for a rejected ballots; if the person's pick just isn't being read it still gets accepted.

The first ballot that sqrl posted, looks perfectly fine but was a reject in Minnesota.

^^I think it is actually considered "challenged" as opposed to "rejected" ballot. I remember hearing that Franken was asking for the canvassing board to review rejected ballots and they (the canvassing board) unanimously said no. I keep hearing that the rejection criteria in MN is fairly objective, but I haven't heard anyone actually specify what it is yet so I can't say for sure.

In fairness, I don't think any of that changes the point you were making, I just wanted to make the distinction for clarity.

Don't get me wrong, this is a complicated issue with valid arguments on both sides of the issue. It's a no-win situation, but there is room for improvement.

I thought I'd just mention that hillarious Maytag man commercial where he unjams the voting machine and hands a pile of crumpeled ballots to the election official.

Some states do try to "ascertain the voters intent" and that is just asking for trouble. It makes the decision subjective and open to (endless) argument. The republican will have one opinion on the voter's intent, while the democrat has another. That was the key to Florida's past problems.

My math teacher used to have a saying, "when in doubt, throw it out"

It may "disenfranchise" more people, but it is the voter's responsibility to make sure they fill in the ballot the proper way. If they turn in a spoiled ballot they have no one but their self to blame. It also prevents legal challenges on every questionable ballot.

I really wish there was a "none of the above" option.
I'm a bit ashamed to admit it, but often when it comes to local elections I have no idea who the candadites are, so I leave the selection blank.
Better no vote then a misinformed vote I always say. But sometimes I do wonder if someone could fill in vote when I leave it blank.

I don't

While I agree with you in principle, the law says it does not count. What MN (my state) should do, is change the law, and then count every ballot after that law is changed the way you see it.

We are a country of laws, and the law says you don't count it.

P.S. The fingerprint one should count, as it's not an identifying mark. If you count that, you need to get rid of all ballots with fingerprints on them (and unless you filled it out with gloves on, that would mean all of them).