THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume VI, Issue # 237, November 9, 2004
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE ELECTION MONITORING CIRCUS LEAVES TOWN
By Peyton Knight
CRITICISM OF THE AMERICAN ELECTORAL SYSTEM EMANATING FROM THE FOREIGN OBSERVERS WHO MONITORED THE 2004 U.S.
ELECTIONS: CRITICISM REFLECTING THE MONITORS' ANTI-AMERICAN BIAS, THEIR ABYSMAL IGNORANCE, & THEIR TOTAL
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING & APPRECIATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY & POLITICAL CULTURE & AMERICA'S SYSTEM OF CHECKS &
BALANCES & DECENTRALIZED POLITICAL POWER -- WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE INVITING FOREIGN ELECTION MONITORS TO
MEDDLE WITH OUR SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS
FULL STORY:
The 2004 presidential and congressional elections have come and gone with nary a hitch. The problems that mired the 2000 elections,
some of them real but most of them fabricated, were practically nonexistent this go-around. Of course, there were a few blips and minor
kinks that surfaced, but we can rest assured that these too will be corrected.
Why? Because our electoral system is a certified thing of beauty. It places accountability at the local level, thereby empowering
citizens to effectively police themselves and solve any unique problems that only they can diagnose. Score another one for our
Founding Fathers. The only dissenters, it seems, are those from the unprecedented team of international monitors that invaded this
year’s electoral proceedings.
Foreign monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Lefty protest group, Global Exchange,
patrolled polling stations in several states. According to them, our system is foreign, confusing and antiquated; mostly because it
does not cater to foreign meddlers. Our Founders’ goal was to create a system that would ensure free and fair elections — not carte
blanche access for outside forces. Yet, to hear the foreign monitors talk, you would think the latter was more important.
“It’s the limit of arrogance,” proclaimed Danish OSCE elections monitor Soeren Soendergaard. Our humble European friend was angry
that some polling stations refused access to foreign monitors, denying them an opportunity to hover over American voters as they
cast their ballots. Pesky state and county laws. “Although we were officially invited to follow the U.S. presidential election, the
message was not passed on to the polling stations,” he lamented. Soeren is referring to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s invitation to
the OSCE.
This is a shining example of why our system is so beautiful. Constitutionally-challenged bureaucrats like Secretary Powell can invite
foreign monitors ‘til the cows come home — but, ultimately, it’s up to the locals whether or not the foreign monitors ever step foot in
a polling place.
In fact, our unique system of checks and balances, decentralized power, and local autonomy was quite the nuisance to our
international visitors. Sergio Aguayo, a monitor from Mexico, offered the verdict that the United States has “the worst electoral
system in the hemisphere.” Strong words, but perhaps he should be taken seriously. After all, as columnist Geri Smith reports in a
recent commentary for Business Week, Mexico has traditionally “had one of the world’s most notoriously corrupt political
systems.”
Smith reminds us how Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party maintained a seven-decade vice-grip on power by stuffing ballot
boxes, and in many instances, “party goons would simply steal ballot boxes at gunpoint.” So how can Aguayo declare the United
States to have “the worst electoral system in the hemisphere” (assuming he has a remedial sense of geography)? Consider the
source. Aguayo’s specific criticisms of the U.S. system are a “complete lack” of spending limits, the need to secure voting rights for
felons, and (here’s the big enchilada) the nationalization and socialization of our elections through federal oversight and public
financing. So much for taking Sergio seriously.
And that brings us to the crux of why these monitors descended upon us. First, they were here at the behest of politically motivated
entities — the rent-a-rioters at Global Exchange and a dozen or so of Congress’ most decidedly Leftist members. So, as one might
expect, these socalled “unbiased” monitors are not impartial, as some would have us believe.
Shortly after they arrived, we heard the siren call for abolishing the Electoral College and all its virtue for a single national system —
preferred by those in Europe. OSCE monitor Konrad Olszewski declared that he preferred countries with “one national election law.”
His partner and former Elections Canada officer, Ron Gould, lamented that “there is not one national election today…there are
actually more than 13,000 elections today.” In other words, Gould thinks that what our country really needs is a national election
czar of sorts — a top down system that is accountable to no one.
While this may seem to be merely the unenlightened guidance of Eurocrats and therefore nothing more to ponder, frighteningly, it is
taken seriously by some on Capitol Hill. In fact, one bullet America may have dodged by avoiding a Kerry presidency was a
complete overhaul of the liberty-preserving system our Founding Fathers so meticulously crafted.
According to The Washington Times, Finnish election monitor Kimmo Kiljunen got some face time with the would-be
President at a Kerry-Edwards rally the day before the election. “Mr. Kerry, I am an international elections observer from Finland; I
have a proposal for you,” lobbied Kiljunen. He then suggested, “that Mr. Kerry should work for uniform election rules for the entire
country at the federal level.” Kerry’s response? “Yes, that’s a good idea. I will do it.”
America’s system of local elections boards worked in 2004 because Americans were empowered to control the process. That is why
we are the oldest and most successful representative democracy in the world. The best way to undo all of this success and reduce
the United States of America to third world status, is to throw out our current electoral method and replace it with a nationalized
system run by a federal elections czar. This is a nightmare idea that must be crushed at every turn.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
American Politics & Political Competition
American Government & the U.S. Presidency
Peyton Knight is Executive Director of the American Policy Center. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.
© American Policy Center 2004
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume VI, 2004
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy