Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
We’re usually saying that it would legitimize these elections
Imagine the audacity of the US to say they legitimized an election when one of their own parties, previous president, and losing candidate can't legitimize the past election and is already refusing to legitimize the next one.
Maybe we should some to their next one to make sure it's actually democratic
If he's re-elected then perhaps that international observers with an absence of electronic voting could be approved by both sides and prevent such doubts from being formulated again. Observers may be considered humiliating for a great power but could perhaps be generalised to every representative republic, if only in order to prevent such excuses ?
I hate the implication that there are two sides. While I agree that US politics has broken into two teams, I think the ideal situation would be that there is only one team (the country as a whole), and that the voting system would not need observers from the candidates' parties to ensure that no one each cheating. Instead, every single one of us should be expected to be vigilant and protect democracy as a fundamental virtue of our society.
My personal belief is that having someone from the Trump party is basically having someone with increased access to cheat. They are not trying to enforce democracy. They are trying to dismantle it so that they could stay in power. Trump doesn't believe the election was a fraud based on objective information and rational logic. He believes it because he is severely mentally ill and needs the delusion to avoid a deep sense of shame and despair. As such, there is nothing anyone could say for him to accept that the election is valid.
If we were going to accept that Trump will not be punished for his crimes nor go away, then we need to find an avenue for him to be able to come up with a delusion that maintains that he "won". Not that he won the election per say, but that he "won the battle between him and Joe Biden" and "is better than him". Again, ideally, we wouldn't want to enable a narcissistic personality, but if we were going to, then we would have to find a way to do so and maintain democracy at the same time. Having observers will not achieve this because his personality holds that he is better, so any facts that refute this will be dismissed.
(i didn't know that, it'd require more researchs than i did on the claims of each side, they'd perhaps say that the coverage was insufficient).
In my opinion we don't have anything to lose by strengthening our electoral system, and every accusation is an occasion to improve it, unless you think that it is already failproof, i've seen long lists of arguments at the end of 2020, but John Oliver also made three videos on the topic of fraud prior to that, and our side didn't hesitate to have doubts twice on the results for Bernie Sanders, whether it happened or not, i do think that cheating is a serious possibility and that such claims should be solved by better measures to please the future candidates/incumbents, instead of only relying on censorship(, youtube, facebook, twitter, ...). To sum up, he did commit to a peaceful transition, and we don't have much to lose by implementing an even stronger surveillance of the procedure for the next elections.
To sum up, he did commit to a peaceful transition,
I don't know if you are referring to Trump, but if you are, I disagree. My position is that he attempted to overthrow the election with a flood of false claims and frivolous lawsuit, intimidating state election authorities to sway the election in his favor, and the whole Jan 6 insurrection. If you don't agree that's fine, but I would like to not discuss that. If anyone at this point disagrees, then there is no point in having a discussion about it because we are not working in the same reality with the same rules for logic.
we don’t have much to lose by implementing an even stronger surveillance of the procedure for the next elections.
My argument is that placing people loyal to Trump in any process that involves handling or monitoring the election is giving them an opportunity to cheat the election in favor of Trump. Trump have convincingly demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and connection with reality. If you disagree, that's fine as well. However, I do not want to debate that for the same reasons as above.
Fair enough, i'll just point out that with such enhanced surveillance it'd be even more difficult than currently(, and ideally impossible,) for people loyal(, or hostile,) to Trump to cheat the election. Thanks for the chat
Thanks for the chat
Same! 🙂
Do you think America is some bastion of fairness and truth? Most of the countries that are stricken with corruption and poverty are that way because the USA meddled with their shit.
The USA should stay the fuck in its own country, and stop influencing the weak countries of the world.
I mean if you send them to Russia to check that the next Putin vote count is "correct", then it would just make the whole voting farce somewhat credible.
Because the votes are counted in a wrong way, or because he got rid of the opposition, or because he's controlling the medias ? The first one is false, even western surveys confirmed his support, but the second and third one could be debated, yet it gets interesting since we could throw the same accusations at our own countries(, it's very difficult to launch a new political party in France since you need an agreement from hundreds of mayors who reserve them to mainstream candidates, and almost impossible to be known without at least a bit of support from mainstream(legacy) medias, Internet could perhaps change that one day but we're not (t)here yet).
You're changing the question here, all democratic countries has their flaws for diverse reasons (France would be that as there is a two round system, lots of small parties would undermine the democratic outcome, I guess. Sometimes it's history, almost always it can be better. But we're democracies at least).
Russia is a dictatorship.
They want Legitimacy and if we, the west, sends people, and even better, we send people and they find no errors (in the small thing they investigate because believe me, Russia won't allow us to send people checking out other things), that will bring Legitimacy to the dictatorship.
"We" meaning the US?
Which country is asking us to send observers and we're saying no?
I'm 100% sure for Venezuela and could find you the source, Europe said they didn't have time despite being asked more than 6 months prior to the elections(, and still having 1-2 months ahead of them).
For Syria i'm almost certain, but i think that i could find the same for Cuba, probably Zimbabwe and in any case i've read such suspicions about Russia and Iran, we even showed videos of a ballon in front of the c.c.t.v. for Russia, even if the surveys proved that V.Putin's support was/is legitimate, on which country would you like sources ?
In general, every government qualified as a "regime" is considered as cheating at elections, i don't see an exception.
Sure, I would love to see those sources if you find them. Venezuela and Russia, if you would.
I can't find this source again(, when they said that they lacked time to send observers), it wasn't talked much at the time, but i'm positive it happened, here's an example of refusal for 2020 though : https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-eu-says-it-wont-send-observers-to-monitor-venezuelan-election-due-to/
Apparently, they've agreed to send observers in 2021 : https://www.postguam.com/the_globe/world/maduro-electoral-observers-from-eu-delegation-of-spies/article_8df8438a-50d1-11ec-b8be-13b5cf9ed4e5.html
The last time was in 2015, once again at the request of the venezuelan government : https://www.eeas.europa.eu/node/26227_en
Some people say that the government won't ask again in 2024 : https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/venezuela-will-not-allow-eu-election-observers-2024-vote-lawmaker-2023-07-13/
But i've clearly overestimated the impact : Venezuela will still be sanctioned and the public opinion will still consider that they're miscounting the votes. Allowing international observers or not doesn't change anything in the end, we'll only be satisfied once the socialist revolution is out, and will continue to accept unsatisfying electoral conditions with our allies(, e.g., in Africa).
You'll need to read pro-venezuelans medias to see the other point of view.
As for Russia, you'll mostly find articles saying that his disapproval rate is at an all-time high, but this kind of article, or statista, are confirming that he's one of the most popular president in the world. I could easily find more sources for this, so the reasoning is that when you're so overwhelmingly popular there's no need to miscount the votes in your favor :
Are you unsatisfied with the sources or my conclusions ?
Well, the sources are satisfying in that they disprove a lot of what you're saying. Venezuela was declined once while most of the time observers were sent. And you were unable to find sources for Russia at all.
You're evidently right, but many articles for the 2021 elections(, 1, 2, 3, ..., including the one cited), said that it has been 15 years since the EU sent observers.
In any case i would like to emphasised that this debate isn't useful : even if westerners systematically sent observers they would still claim that the results are illegitimate because of the overall process(, which deserve some explanations/debates because our own system is far from perfect, and we're blending the consequences&causes of the sanctions, etc.). I should have deleted this post like i intended at first once i realized that.
A few more minutes of research wielded these results :
I didn't write that we refused to send international observers to Russia, but that « i've read such suspicions about Russia and Iran, we even showed videos of a ballon in front of the c.c.t.v. for Russia », despite « the reasoning that when you're so overwhelmingly popular there's no need to miscount the votes in your favor ».
It appears that we did send international observers(, until 2021), but my point is that it wasn't necessary, yet we're still showing suspicions(, e.g. the balloon in front of a c.c.t.v. to take an example).
I'd just like to end by saying once again that this whole debate is pointless because it doesn't change anything in the end, whether we systematically refused to send observers, or always sent them while accusing the whole "democratic" process instead(, it's apparently in-between, but much more the latter than the former, contrary to what i initially thought).
I should have deleted this post from the start like i first intended once i realised, in the selftext, that « In the end sanctions would stay in place so it wouldn't be useful in any way, and doesn't matter, i should probably delete this post but i'm leaving it in the off-chance that some find an interest in it. »
Sorry if you felt that i wasted your time.
