A 2019 report published by the Electoral Integrity Project, an independent project based out of Harvard University, found that U.S. elections from July 2012 through December 2018 rated "lower than any other long-established democracies and affluent societies." Each country in the index was given a score out of 100 based on assessments of the quality of each of its elections – including categories such as electoral laws, voter registration and voting process – one month after polls closed. The U.S. score of 61 – the same score as Mexico and Panama – is the second-lowest among liberal democracies and much lower than other countries in the Americas region, including Costa Rica, Uruguay and Chile. Denmark, Finland and Norway are among the top-ranked countries in the index, all with scores in the 80s. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...re-poorly-to-other-democracies-research-shows No one can accuse Harvard University of being a rightwing organization. Even before this 2020 election, where it is clear in my opinion every possible method of election fraud was made available to insure it could be declared Trump lost even if Trump won the legitimate vote by large margins, Harvard University determined that the United States has among the lowest election integrity in the world. Not just among modern first world countries, but even lower than dozens of 3rd world countries. Specifically, #57. I've often posted election laws in the USA are written to deliberately promote, protect and allow election fraud to the incumbent power - usually but not always partisan - for the particular jurisdiction. With this 2020 election, the USA ceased to be a democratic republic to being a corporate-fascist plutocracy for which the richest corporations and people in the world (not just USA) control all of the MSM, press, Internet and own most politicians. There really may be no reason to bother to vote. Whoever the plutocrats and kleptocrats want to win nationally, will win. Whoever local officials want to win, will be declared the winner. Of course, with Biden declared the winner the ultra leftwing Harvard has written massive piles of words trying to walk that back their 6 year study concluded in 2019. Anyone here calling Harvard University a liar for claiming the United States has virtually no election integrity and has among the most incompetent and corrupt elections in the world?
Were you to actually read the study and review the data you would find that it gives reasons for the rating that Norris & Grömping give the USA, and those reasons are not supportive of your claims at all. Good luck with that.
Yeah the US losing its status as a democracy is not new. We were already declared a flawed democracy before the 2020 election.
Flawed is the essential nature of all forms of government. Our Representative Democracy being no exception from the moment of its birth to any future date. .
Did you read the article that you linked? I would be surprised if you actually agreed with the criticism identified in the article. It identifies that because we allow states and countries to set how elections are run it creates inconsistencies as opposed to systems like in Canada where "Elections Canada" runs everything and elections are the same everywhere in the country. Is that what you want? It identifies political partisanship with certain policy initiatives, interfering with what the election administration should primarily be focused on. (people getting in the way of the process like ballot watchers) They talk about lack of same day registration which is the norm in many other countries. The size of the ballot because we vote on some many other things whereas in places like Canada they are short simple ballots. Voter turnout how the US has lower voter turnout than most other democracies with the exception of Switzerland but then they supposedly vote a lot. (Is this a voter suppression issue?) And here is the BIG ONE. The say US elections are "HIGHLY LITIGATED". They gave examples where some states like Texas tried to limit the number of drop boxes. And here is how they closed. "But the extension of mail voting capabilities has proven effective in some countries, including South Korea, the network found. Stewart says that there is no basis to the doubt being sown in the integrity of voting by mail in the U.S., but adds that mail ballots are being "regularly rejected." One final observation the top 4 countries on the list a socialist Scandinavian countries. Like you said, I highly doubt that anyone would accuse Harvard of being right wing after reading this article.
The article you linked peaked my interest so I decide to download the entire report from the study. After briefly looking at the report I am certain that most Trump supporters would not agree with the findings. Under ways they list for why the integrity of elections has been challenged they include: Cybersecurity attacks on official electoral records and party email servers. Intelligence reports of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Online dissemination of illegal content, notably defamation, hate speech and incitement to violence as well as the spread of conspiracy theories online. The erosion of public confidence in news media, fueled by populist claims of "FAKE NEWS" Here is a quote from the report: Still lots in the report to digest but I need sleep so it will have to wait but I totally agree with your assessment that Harvard is no right wing organization.
Incorrect. I am very aware of and have been reading DI reports of the EIU for years. The secrecy they maintain on who their experts are, if they are independent or are corporate employees, is a rather massive failing on their part. It would be understandable that they do this for scholars living under authoritarian regimes, but not for all 167 countries they claim to survey and rate. There simply is far too little transparency in what the EIU publishes to give them any credence..
Did you actually read this? The issues they found are pretty much everything that Republicans push for... You stopped at the heading didn’t you? I agree with their findings completely. We have been saying for a while that Scandinavian democracies are onto something. Lets try it.
Apples to oranges. From your link: "But one difficulty that comes with comparing U.S. elections to other countries – even other democracies – is the unique nature of election administration in the nation ..." We don't have a national election process, we have fifty separate election processes. More, actually, because many localities have their own rules depending on what's up for a vote. "... if counties are running their elections differently within a state, then you can have hundreds of elections going on, each of them with their own set of rules and procedures." Your own link negates the premise of this thread.
No it doesn't. Their noting the chaotic nature of American elections is another confirmation of their report. But nice try on your part anyway.
There are two problems, at least, with the Electoral Integrity Project. One is their bias and, due to their self imposed secrecy, our inability to assess that bias.This is important for all subjective study methods. Knowing who makes these subjective assessments, knowing their backgrounds and comparing their other works to understand how their viewpoints influence those assessments is crucial to assessing the quality of the work itself. The other problem is a lack of historical context which, if studied, would leave their assessments looking rather silly and petty. Elections have been far more raucous, filled with "fake news" and voter suppression, among other factors, in the USA and other democracies at various times in the last couple of centuries. I have never given these reports any credence for they decline to provide background data sufficient for me to perform my own assessment on them. Another reason is simply how very new this organization still is, it only got going in 2012.
You should be careful about your wish list given a Republican propensity for gerrymandering and voter suppression. Consider the 2012 House election where Democrats received more votes but the House went to the Republicans: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections Are you prepared to look at Republican tactics like the Texas nonsense of only having one drop-off location for early voting in Houston? How about the long lines at polling stations in minority precincts in Georgia?
As former secretaries of defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S. armed forces and the Defense Department. Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not swear it to an individual or a party. American elections and the peaceful transfers of power that result are hallmarks of our democracy. With one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined, the United States has had an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war, epidemics and economic depression. This year should be no exception. Our elections have occurred. Recounts and audits have been conducted. Appropriate challenges have been addressed by the courts. Governors have certified the results. And the electoral college has voted. The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived. As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, “there’s no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of a U.S. election.” Efforts to involve the U.S. armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory. Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic. Transitions, which all of us have experienced, are a crucial part of the successful transfer of power. They often occur at times of international uncertainty about U.S. national security policy and posture. They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation. Given these factors, particularly at a time when U.S. forces are engaged in active operations around the world, it is all the more imperative that the transition at the Defense Department be carried out fully, cooperatively and transparently. Acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and his subordinates — political appointees, officers and civil servants — are each bound by oath, law and precedent to facilitate the entry into office of the incoming administration, and to do so wholeheartedly. They must also refrain from any political actions that undermine the results of the election or hinder the success of the new team. We call upon them, in the strongest terms, to do as so many generations of Americans have done before them. This final action is in keeping with the highest traditions and professionalism of the U.S. armed forces, and the history of democratic transition in our great country. Former US Secretary of Defense: Dick Cheney, March 21, 1989 – January 20, 1993 William Perry, February 3, 1994 – January 23, 1997 William Cohen, January 24, 1997 – January 20, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld, January 20, 2001 – December 18, 2006 Robert Gates, December 18, 2006 – June 30, 2011 Leon Panetta, July 1, 2011 – February 26, 2013 Chuck Hagel, February 27, 2013 – February 17, 2015 Ashton Carter, February 17, 2015 – January 20, 2017 James Mattis, January 20, 2017 – January 1, 2019 Mark Esper, July 23, 2019 – November 9, 2020
There is a fair argument that having 52+ different sets of election rules/laws is always going to offend someone's idea of "fairness". Some of the rules/laws, last minute changes I support, others I do not. I have zero problem with voter ID laws. I have no problem with mail-in voting as long as the rules don't get changed because of all the manufactured nonsense like we saw going on this year. I absolutely oppose same-day registration. To me the registration books should close for the election no later than the day mail ballots start to be sent out except when there is an address change within the same voting district that needs to be updated. Hell the debates began a year and a half before the election. If it takes you to the day of the election to decide to register, you shouldn't be allowed to.
The US Constitution leaves to the many States to determine how elections are to be carried out. With the obvious exception of where Congress sees the need to apply national statute. In our Representative Democracy it is vital that as high a percentage of voting age citizens as possible take part in voting. I am perfectly comfortable with the States allowing registration right up to election day. If a State wants to say you can register on one form and send in your completed ballot by mail, in the same envelope, I'm alright with that too. If a state wants to allow walk-ins to a polling place to register and vote on the spot, this too is fine by me. That's the purview of the States and, by extension, to the counties in those states where substantial election regulation is delegated to the counties (nearly if not all of the USA).. I do firmly believe in proving one's residency and citizenship. Even though fraud is rare on any scale that could matter, this is one thing that should be under Federal statute. Liberal folks would react that such stringent requirement of identification disenfranchises the poor or anyone without adequate documentation. My reply is "Alright, I believe there's a problem to be fixed here". So, tell me the specifics of why these voting age citizens cannot provide identification? Then start talking up ideas for them to obtain the proper means of proving residency and citizenship. Whatever those problems are, define them and devise means of correction. You will certainly have my vote to supply all needed funds to pay for the added government support. Such as sending election workers to elderly shut-ins, the disabled who cannot easily get out to register, or to anyone needing the help of a visiting pair of election workers to get properly registered. Everyone should vote. Those who chose not to vote should be fined a small amount, and ridiculed on public billboards along the roadways. The collected fines used to help everyone willing to live up to their obligations as citizens to vote.
No it is not and we should be putting pressure on people to do so. Someone who does not have the gumption, the care and concern on their own to vote probably should be and should be encouraged to do so. Why, because they probably know little of the candidates or the issues and probably less about our government and the Constitution in general. Of course if they are eligible under the law they can't be prevented. But the goal should not be just herding bodies to a polling place and letting them toss darts at a ballot and then cast it, that makes for a LOUSY election.
And let's not forget that when the UN Human Rights Commission sent observers there was no voter ID in some places they were shocked along with other things like MAIL IN voting. Foreign election officials amazed by trust-based U.S. voting system For the head of Libya’s national election commission, the method by which Americans vote is startling in that it depends so much on trust and the good faith of election officials and voters alike. “It’s an incredible system,” said Nuri K. Elabbar, who traveled to the United States along with election officials from more than ... “....It’s very difficult to transfer this system as it is to any other country. This system is built according to trust and this trust needs a lot of procedures and a lot of education for other countries to adopt it,” Elabbar said. The most often noted difference between American elections among the visitors was that in most U.S. states, voters need no identification. Voters can also vote by mail, sometimes online, and there’s often no way to know if one person has voted several times under different names, unlike in some Arab countries, where voters ink their fingers when casting their ballots."... https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/11/0...ls-amazed-by-trust-based-u-s-voting-system-2/
