After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.
The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"
The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.
The most significant of these requirements are:
• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
posted
Too bad Carter is just as biased. He also leaves out that each party is allowed to have on observer per polling station, its not the Republicans' fault if the Dem's don't take advantage.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
how exactly does observing the polling station ensure that people who have been stricken from the voter rolls get a chance to vote anyway?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You would have thought losing the NAACP lawsuit would've been enough for the state to get the hint. :/
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, having observed the Ms. Harris election process close up in FL, I have to agree with Carter that it ought not to be possible for the chairperson of someone's state election campaign to serve in any capacity that has any decision making power over vote counting.
I don't care what party you are, that's a pretty bad idea.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Your ignorance is staggering....Carter could care less who wins, and his recommendations are simple, easy to implement....
And are required worldwide to certify electing results as authentic.
Too bad that doing so in FL might not be in the Republicans best interest, huh?
Carter is know worldwide as impartial and fair, but since there is nothing to criticize in his policies, people make personal attacks on him.
Never mind that those policies would not guarantee a win for Democrats....they would just make sure that all votes were counted, and the person who actually deserves to win (whomever that might be)would do so.
Why am I not surprised that the Republicans in FL don't want that to happen....
posted
Especially since the article (at least the quoted portion) specifically leaves out Democrats who contributed to the mess:
1) The "butterfly ballot" was designed and approved by an election board controlled by Democrats.
2) The Democrats attempted to change the standard for determining whether a vote was cast on the punch cards.
3) The much-ridiculed SCOTUS decision was based on uniformity of treatment during recounts. It seems uniformity is only a goal sometimes.
Further, at least some of the proofs of "bias" are suspect, to say the least. Pre-printing absentee ballots is necessary to ensure that they are ready on time. To show bias, the onus is on Carter to show they would have gone out with Nader's name had the court ruled the other way.
Further, it's very specious to be complaining about Nader's presence on the ballot when the Dems have engaged in dirty tricks across the country to keep him off ballots. As long as we're talking about structural changes, it's worth noting that the petition structure is horribly lopsided against third-party candidates. Both major parties benefit from this misaligned electoral structure.
posted
Carter has demonstrated himself to be a relatively fair-minded and benevolent individual. It's only fair to treat him as such.
At the same time, he himself is still a Democrat and, as such, has the same special interest in this election as anyone who supports a particular party. It is foolish to portray him as purely nonpartisan.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Dagonee, its also worth noting that Gore initially proposed to the Bush camp a complete recount (uniformity incarnate, ne?), which was rejected. Absent Bush campaign barriers, that recount would likely have been completed relatively quickly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Carter has condemned a number of this administration's actions and he was a DEMOCRATIC president.
Nice...proving once again that it is easier to attack a person than his goals...which would be fair to all, not just to Democrats.
I don't care about the Nader part, I have heard it too many times before. Of course he has the right to run....should he is another question, and one he must answer to himself.
But the policies are not even-handed in FL, and haven't been for many years.
Is there a probalem with any of his reforms, or would you all like to continue tilting at the windmill of partisan politics?
posted
And fugu, Gore proposed a state-wide recount, but using unprecedent criteria for counting the disputed ballots. It was an attempt to change the rules mid-election.
posted
On the subject of poll-watchers: I find it amazing that the American people have so much trust in precinct officials. While it is my conviction - as a precinct officer in many elections myself - that most officers are honest and above-board, I don't think that the voters should take that for granted.
In all the years I've been a precinct officer, I can only recall having any poll watchers present one time, in the hotly contested gubernatorial recall election here in California last October. We had one that time. He had a clear agenda (which was fine) that he was very up-front and honest about, and it was fun watching his frustration that we ran everything exactly by the book. But even he didn't stay after the polling place closed to observe as we handled the ballots and bookkeeping essential to the counting of the votes - as he, or any poll watcher, is clearly allowed by law to do.
I hope that, after 2000, every polling place in the nation in this presidential election is monitored by poll watchers (who can, at least in California, come early and stay all day if they want to, as long as they only observe and don't interfere with the process) from all parties. Keep everybody honest.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
AFAIK the only condition of the Gore campaign was that it be a hand recount. Got a link otherwise?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well obviously SCOTUS isn't going to write an opinion saying "We want a republican president, so we are going to stop the recounts." But to say that their decision was not motivated by partisan factors is to completely ignore that their votes on the issue went strictly on party lines.
Furthermore, cancelling the recounts entirely represented an unprecedented encroachment on state authority over elections. Had they ruled that there must be a niform standard for the recounts, and sent it back to the State supreme court, that would have been just. Instead, they used the dubious assertion that there wasn't enough time, which they had no way of proving, to stop the recounts entirely. That said, I don't like his use of the Nader issue as proof of impropriety. There are plenty of others to deal with wihtout getting into that can of worms. If there is going to be a problem, it is the ridiculous way Florida has dealt with its African American voters. It amazes me that they can get away with it! Alas...
Also, the lack of a paper ballot presents complete lack of transparency in the process. I just hope it doesn't come down to Florida again.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
Why is is so controversial to ask that the person running the campaign for either candidate NOT be in charge of the voting process?
Seems like a fair request to me.
Also, there have been many reports (and not just from CBS ) of the many people who were illegally denied their right to vote, based on policies that were enforced ONLY in the heavily Democratic minority areas.
I believe a lawsuit was won to that effect right?
If it was a Democrat using these tactics I would be every bit as offended and upset.
BTW, who asked the Carter Center to make recommendations?
And their charter was to help underprivileged countries develop proper voting procedures....not to bail out states. They are doing what they were designed to do.
As if Jeb would allow them to do it, anyway...
And wasn't it a bi-partisan board that made these recommendations?
posted
Yeah... seems to me that the folks that are pounding on Carter for being a Democrat are forgetting that Gerald Ford was also a part of this reccomendation and HE is a Republican.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not pounding on Carter for the reccomendations. I'm pounding on Carter for the lopsidedness of his description of the problems with the Florida elections.
You too can hire Jimmy Carter to endorse your product or interst group? Call now! Operators are standing by!
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Democrats make mistakes? Of course. But their mistakes did not disenfranchise 22,000 voters -- forty times the amount of votes Bush won by (537) in Florida.
This is Database Technologies. This is the company that the state of Florida hired to remove the names of people who committed serious crimes from the voter lists.
I have obtained a document marked "confidential and trade secret". It says the company was paid millions of dollars to make telephone calls to verify they got the right names - but they didn't.
There is nothing in the state of Florida files that says they made these telephone calls. So the question remains, why did the Republican leaders of this state pay millions for a list that stopped thousands of innocent Democrats from voting?
The first list from DBT included 8,000 names from Texas supplied by George Bush's state officials. They said they were all felons, serious criminals barred from voting. As it turns out, almost none were. Local officials raised a ruckus and DBT issued a new list naming 58,000 felons. But the one county which went through the whole expensive process of checking the new list name by name found it was still 95% wrong.
***
[Database Technologies'] vice-president told us that "manual verification by telephone calls" does not mean ringing people up to check they have got the right person. So were they paid to produce a list which they knew would name thousands of innocent black people? In fact DBT told Newsnight that Clayton Roberts and the State of Florida:
"... wanted there to be more names than were actually verified as being a convicted felon."
***
Clayton Roberts, the director of Florida's division of elections:
"We did not call and say did you check the list again... the whole tenor of this is like OK you screwed up you didn't check with DBT and if you want to hang this on me that's fine. It is certainly fine for George W Bush. Even if investigators conclude that Jeb Bush and the Republicans conspired to steal this election, the man in that house for the next four years will be George W Bush."
posted
Alucard...what is your point? That he a) charges to be a speaker? Or b) that he has someone to coordinate those events? Were you concerned that Republicans like George Pataki and Dan Quayle also are listed using this service? How about Ex-Mrs. President Betty Ford? Carter and many ex-politicians make a living doing speeches. I saw him when I was in high school back in the 80's. He was amazing. Party affiliations aside, he is one of the best examples of what an ex-president should be. In fact, many can safely argue he has contributed more to the world since leaving the presidency than when he was President. Sheesh.
posted
Dag, I wonder if there is more detailed report from Carter? Because it was clearly written that his examples were what he cited as the most significant examples of what was missing to ensure secure and fair elections. This was by no means his entire report and while a Democratically controlled committee create the maligned butterfly ballot (similar to the one we use in Ohio, too...one can only fear the amount of scrutiny WE will be getting in November) was an issue in terms of efficiency, it is by no means as audacious as having your State Co-Chair of your presidential campaign overseeing the fairness of the election that state.
Regarding the Nader thing, he was making a point that fits both parties...a third party doesn't go on to a ballot until a certain process is completed. If he was put on it before that process was completed, as he is suggesting, then that smacks of concern. It doesn't matter what leads to him getting on or off the ballot...that is dirty politics and he isn't discussing that. Nader's name is being removed from some and added to others as we speak. What is fair or not in how that happens isn't at stake...he is saying that it is suspicious of a state official putting a 3rd party candidate on a ballot when approval from the Court wasn't given. He shouldn't have to show what the effect would have been if he wasn't on it or not...if he wasn't supposed to be on it, he shouldn't have been on it until authority was given.
One can argue with what isn't included in this little article, but can anyone honestly argue with what IS in the article? Beyond saying "oh, he is a Democrat so of course he feels this way."
quote: quote: we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority.
(O)_o
I think that about says it all.
Please clarify. The Carter Center clearly is dedicated to world politics, world health and assisting in ensuring fair elections in countries that are maybe new to democracy or having troubles. One would hope that the USA election concerns aren't on the same scale of need as places like Mozambique, Indonesia, and Venezuala. If our own country can't effectively create a fair election system in one state, we are hardly the example as we push democracy on other countries.
If you DO think our election squabbles in 2000 and now in 2004 are as bad as those countries, then maybe write to the Carter Center directly and ask for their assistance in monitoring....since they already worked in a bi-partisan way to make recommendations 2 years ago, recommendations that he notes haven't been put in effect. Hmmm...maybe you are right!
I think this is it. This link goes to a .pdf file that contains the 114 page report filed in 2001 that is co-sponsored by Mr. Carter and Mr. Ford. I read a bit of it and it quickly establishes recommendations that include Dag's concern about the ballot system, as well as the role of the Federal government and so on. I will read more of it later (have to get back to work! Aieee!!).
quote: If you DO think our election squabbles in 2000 and now in 2004 are as bad as those countries, then maybe write to the Carter Center directly and ask for their assistance in monitoring
My selection of that statement is that we are all in an uproar about Carter's credibility when he really isn't that concerned.
If we really want to relive the 2000 Florida election, don't forget that the press called the state before polls were even closed in the western regions of the state which were in a different time zone and swung republican. If we are talking about the disenfranchisement of thousands of any given party.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...when the Dems have engaged in dirty tricks across the country to keep him (Nader) off ballots
You got some unbiased proof for that, hon?
And there's always this:
In November, 2002, republicans put up flyers in a primarily black neighborhood, scaring off voters, and telling them to "Be sure to come to the polls" the day after the vote!
posted
Both parties do terrible things. Neither is above reproach. Carter is a democrat, and he is certainly not unbiased on political issues.
Hashing all this out, is not exactly productive since the 2000 election is over and has been for four years.
I'm sure there will be plenty of dirty tricks on both sides of the aisles to rail about come the day after the November 2004 elections.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If we really want to relive the 2000 Florida election, don't forget that the press called the state before polls were even closed in the western regions of the state which were in a different time zone and swung republican. If we are talking about the disenfranchisement of thousands of any given party.
Are actions of the press on par with actions taken by the state government?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should also point out that in the 2000 election the second highest elections offical, Bob Butterworth, worked for the Gore campaign.
I honestly don't understand why any elections official can work for a campaign, in any capacity other than Voter. Or, for that matter, why any of them would since their bias would immediately be assumed.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the highest election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, served as co-chairwoman of the Bush presidential campaign in Florida as well as a member of the State Board of Canvassers.
When asked certain specific questions about the election process, Harris replied:
"With all due respect, I stand accountable and responsible as secretary of state for these issues, but Mr. (Clay) Roberts is the one who administers those issues everyday and there are many, many things I'm only made aware of when there is a necessary decision." CNN
Roberts, a Republican, said:
quote:"We did not call and say did you check the list again... the whole tenor of this is like OK you screwed up you didn't check with DBT and if you want to hang this on me that's fine. It is certainly fine for George W Bush. Even if investigators conclude that Jeb Bush and the Republicans conspired to steal this election, the man in that house for the next four years will be George W Bush."
I'm afraid no one on this thread has yet to state or point to any evidence whatsoever that supports that statement as you are trying to apply it to Democrats.
Carter is biased, though he states he is not??? Is that what you're comparing with claims that Bush used underhanded party politics to steal the 2000 election? Or that Republicans used rascist and underhanded methods to try and win some local elections in 2002?
Please, show us some of the terrible things that Democrats have done to try and win elections. With evidence.
[Edited to add:]
And "hashing this out" is incredibly important, since, according to the ever-biased Nobel Peace Prize winner and international elder statesman Jimmy Carter, they are all set to do it again. And for the record, might I add, "electronically"?
Thank you for telling us "not to worry," but I hear this sooo many times. "Please stop asking us just how unreliable we've been in the past. The past is the past. You can trust us now..."
Ever hear the parable of the frog and the scorpion?
posted
It should be noted that Harris may have been in breach of Constitutional law.
She worked for the Bush/Cheney campaign. She was Fla Secretary of State...
The United State Constitution: Article II, Section I, Clause 2 Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused. Is the problem that we should be looking at here how to bring our elections into line with an accepted non-partisan set of standards or is it how can we make the other party look bad? See, I would think that it would be the first, but people keep on coming up to the point where these paths diverge and they keep seeming to me to have taken the pettier branch.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose the question being considered is whether Carter's plan is really nonpartisan or not. Of course, people on both sides seem to be missing this point.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those that think that a "rehash" of one of the most botched presidential elections in history on the eve of what many are calling the most important election in our lifetime is a bad thing...well, what can I say? Maybe we have spent too much time on Viet Nam and the 70's and forget the NOW! I think it is easier to attempt to discredit the messenger vs. talking points of the message. Carter's blurb was short and may have missed some of the details but instead hit the broad strokes. I posted what I am pretty sure is his report and it is, unless Ford converted, a bi-partisan report that says what is needed in fair elections and even hits some of the talking points brought up by people I whom I see come off as defensive Republicans who feel their W is above reproach. I know for Red State people it must feel like a personal attack to point out that the screw up in Florida cost the guy with the most votes to lose the election to a guy who many, even from the Right, consider to be one of the worst presidents in modern history. But there it is. (/rant).
If there were mistakes involved from the Democratic side as Dag pointed out...those seem to be just bad judgement, such as approving a worthless voting ballot. From the Republican side, it wasn't mistakes but clearly an effort to use their positions to benefit their candidate of choice. If it had happened in another State it might not have gotten the press, but it was W's brother's home state and the people in power were clearly in the Bush camp. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, well...gotta be a duck. So it isn't "petty" attacks...it is a clear indictment of misuse of power to sway an election which is high crime and all people are told is "get over it" as if it were no worse than, say, j-walking. THAT is insulting. And the fact that things haven't significantly changed in that state to ensure that this won't happen again is of big concern.
And Pooka, Mr. Carter is clearly concerned about our election...else why would he work with Mr. Ford to put together a fairly large report two years ago to note what was wrong with the process and what could be done better? Just because he isn't using his Carter Center to be the monitors of the Florida election doesn't mean he doesn't care...it just means that our election issues aren't on the scale of a country trying to crawl out from under a dictator's grasp or an oppressive regime's fixed elections. Unless, as I noted, you feel we ARE suffering that type of system. In which case, I agree...Carter should focus his Carter Center on this potentially most heinous election of 2004.
I'm at work, and so can't be either verbose or eloquent (as I would normally like to be).
I'm going to wait a day or two more for someone to point out how the Democrats are as abusive to the electoral procedure as the Republicans have been, and if I don't hear anything, I'm going to declare a Democratic victory, and courteously request that all this Republican/Conservative nonsense about "The Dems are just as bad" be blown out their earses.
I'm personally sick and tired of all these unsubstantiated Republican attacks and attempts at distraction, and I'm not going to take it any more.
posted
Fine. Declare victory now, because I've put up with accusations against Republicans on this board that are still unsubstantiated almost a year after I first read them, and I'm awfully tired of the BS.
If you read my post carefully, I make no qualms about speeches or appearances. I make my case concerning ENDORSEMENTS .
I have no cares or concerns whether other Republicans or Democrats do this either. In short, I believe Jimmy Carter can charter and initiate a nonpartisan act or organization, but at heart, I believe the the partisanship that is engrained into every politician only becomes a stronger stranglehold as they progress up the political ladder. So, in essence, I do not believe Jimmy Carter would do anything knowingly or willingly to jeopardise the Democratic party, even if it means being partisan.
But I do agree that his actions and organisations can exist as bipartisan, so long as they do not seriously damage the Democratic party.
Hope that makes sense.
P.S. I also wanted to add that to endorse a product (for money) completely shatters the notion of impartiality in some regard for me. The mere selection of which products or organisations he would or would not endorse clearly implies his partisanship at some level. I do commend him, though, for his efforts. This is not a slam towards Mr. Carter, just more of a clarification that no politician can completely shed all of his partisan political affiliations and become completely neutral. But some do so much more than others. Jimmy Carter is one of the best ones, IMO.
If I've left any accusations against the Republicans unsubstantiated, I do apologize.
Give me one or two of your worst ones, and I'll substantiate them for you. Let me know if you want to do this, and I assume we'll reconvene on another thread for this.
It's not about you or really anything in this thread. It's about me being tired of the whole thing right now.
I'm going to try to swear off political threads. Not controversial threads, or philosophical threads, or even threads about issues that are also dealt with in politics. Just the ones about specific candidates and what they've done or are going to do.
This thread is particularly depressing because there are several examples of such basic misunderstandings of the legal and political process that it almost makes me cry. And one of them is from a former president.
No one can win these arguments. At this point, I care more about ideas than people. I'm watching the debate, and not reading or watching any pre- or post-debate coverage.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) of the many people who were illegally denied their right to vote, based on policies that were enforced ONLY in the heavily Democratic minority areas.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
