MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
US receives Monday OAS Electoral observation mission ahead of 8 November vote
Next Monday, October 24th, the Chief of the Organization of American States Electoral Observation Mission (OAS/EOM) to the United States, former Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla, will begin a preliminary visit to the United States during which she will hold meetings with key authorities and stakeholders of the electoral process in the states of Georgia and Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“and the invitation was accepted by Secretary General Almagro on July 11th”
Oct 22nd, 2016 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Will they be 'up' to spotting the fixes for The Hill?
I wouldn't think so, Almagro worked for The Dark Country all the time he was Foreign Minister for Uruguay.
And that never worked for Uruguay.
How does the “fixes” for Hillary work here Chris, with 50 independent states and all, not to mention various local venues in each state? Hell in Massachusetts, overall a democratics state, there all localities where democrats never bother because they are so conservative. Also, there was this past poster who always stated that the majority of Americans are really conservative.
Oct 23rd, 2016 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2WHat I really can't seem to grasp, if the democrats are fixing this election, where didn't they bother to do so with the HoR's and Senate elections. They must be idiots to give the two chambers to the GOP with a democratic president for the past 6 years.
@ Captain Poppy
Oct 23rd, 2016 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“ where didn't they bother to do so with the HoR's and Senate elections.”
Perhaps they have learnt a thing or two from that 'little' error but is it really possible to fix multiple elections?
I don't know but I suspect concentrating resources on just one candidate makes for a better chance to 'fix the horse race', so to speak.
This from 'The Hill':
”There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Electoral College system. Not only may it lead to a popular vote loser winning the election, it also effectively cuts out most voters from the political process. California, Texas and New York, to name three of the biggest examples, are ignored by the presidential contenders. But while there may be legitimate reasons to change the system, it is worth understanding why there is an Electoral College in the first place and what it really was designed to do. Its focus was not to limit popular choice. Instead, it was an intricate compromise, adapting the existing electoral frameworks available in the states. Its key goal was to have a system that gave the country a clear leader selected by an agreed upon process.
Just look at the final sentence: I thought having a straight election where every eligible voter was allowed one vote guaranteed that. It does in the UK.
Also, how can it even be tolerated that someone select to be a representative in the college for an agreed number of wannabe electors then 'change their mind' and vote another way?
I remember you posting to me some twelve months ago probably that you liked the time it took to get to a vote to be able to see for yourself what each candidate is like. I cannot imagine that anyone is happy with the two ludicrous people that have emerged from this process.
The third party candidates just seem to be 'spoilers' to the main event.
Perhaps I expect too much from such a powerful nation. I was certainly disappointed by Obama. What a waste the first coloured President has made of his chance in power.
@ ChrisR
Oct 23rd, 2016 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do you seriously believe the US elections will be rigged? You keep telling us “it's the vote that counts”, have you changed your mind?
And yes, it would be just as easy to fix multiple elections. Some states actually allow voters to tick one box to vote for the candidates of the chosen party for every office.
The Electoral College does allow the candidate who lost the popular vote to win the Presidency, most recently Bush in 2000. I expect most Americans would be happy to elect the President by popular vote instead but they're always very reluctant to change their constitution.
Not sure why you're comparing to the UK though. Only the members of the winning party get to vote for the PM and the general elections have the same problem in that most people's votes are completely irrelevant.
@ DemonTree
Oct 24th, 2016 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It is not me who claim the US elections will be rigged but more than 40% of the US electorate.
“Not sure why you're comparing to the UK though. Only the members of the winning party get to vote for the PM and the general elections have the same problem in that most people's votes are completely irrelevant.”
1) The person heading the party just before the election is seen as the next PM. The Queen never turns them down. I have never known an election where that was not the case except the screwed up Lab/Lib-Dem, oh no, Con/Lib-Dem fiasco.
2) How can “most people's votes are completely irrelevant.” How can that be the case, they voted, their vote was not for the winning party, but they WERE counted, they were NOT ignored.
Just remember, when a lot of the people on this board were sitting on the fence or claiming the Remoaners would win the UK/EU referendum I encouraged voting 'Leave' and said all along that it would be the case.
I will not be at all surprised if Trump wins, not at all.
It seems from what I have read in the US press the money is behind The Hil, but many ordinary people think it should be arrest warrants!
I shall laugh my socks off though if he “Trumps” it.
@ ChrisR
Oct 24th, 2016 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you also believe the US elections will be rigged? Your comment implied you do and you have not actually denied it.
Yes, the leader of the winning party is assumed to be the next PM, but people don't get to vote for them directly.
Every eligible voter is allowed one vote in both the US and UK. In neither case do they get to vote directly for the leader, but the US system is more direct.
And when I say most people's votes are irrelevant, I am talking about the 'first past the post' system that we use in the UK. If you live in a safe seat, there is no discernible chance that your vote will actually make a difference to the outcome. This is true whether you vote for the winning party or one of the others.
Senior members of the parties are handed these seats, and none of the candidates make much effort to campaign there since the result is a foregone conclusion.
Sounds pretty similar to California, Texas and New York being ignored by the presidential contenders, no?
We even have an equivalent to the 'faithless electors' in MPs who 'cross the floor' and join a different party. If the government's majority is slim enough, this could even force a new election.
“Just remember, when a lot of the people on this board were sitting on the fence or claiming the Remoaners would win the UK/EU referendum I encouraged voting 'Leave' and said all along that it would be the case.”
Yes, you did. It's a shame you don't have the courage now to admit that it was you who caused the fall in the pound, instead of trying to blame others.
“I shall laugh my socks off though if he “Trumps” it.”
It's bad karma, laughing at others' misfortune...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!