After a couple of days of feeling like crap, today I felt somewhat better… hopefully it stays that way.

What I find odd about the US election is that numerous sources still claim that in some way – whether or not if affected the outcome though quite how it works when a candidate yields before all the votes are counted is beyond me – the election was not fair. Fair as in all votes counted, fair as in tactics used in the polling lines, fair as in the use or abuse of technology. While the overall result may well be that the incumbent remained, the noise being made by those who proclaim the unfairness and the deafening silence from those in control remains. It may not be a loud noise, but it’s a noise all the same. So.. there’s that noise. The words ‘smoke’ and ‘fire’ spring to mind, and if they don’t for the US, then let’s hope they don’t throw that same stone at others because from where I sit, that house looks like it has a shed-load of glass in it right now.
Because when (note .. there is no IF there) the US kicks off because an election in another country was not totally fair and transparent, that’ll stink a bit won’t it ? Maybe the UN should be sent into America in 4 years time to supervise it ? After all, it’s not just violence that changes ballot results is it ?
If you translated what has happened there to something like a Student’s Union, or a Shareholders meeting, or even Parliament, then we’d think very differently. It’s almost an impersonal issue – certainly from here it is – but if you knew someone or a group of people that had acted in such a way, wouldn’t your opinion be that much less ?
My political views as to who should occupy the White House right now matters not. The simple fact is that what was seen and continues to be heard shows that the US cannot – to the satisfaction of people from other countries – conduct something as basic as an election – or even falsify the results and keep it a very well-kept secret.

4 thoughts on “OMOV

  1. Mark, the problem is that those who claim that the election wasn’t fair are those who do not accept the result. In all fairness, it’s just like Republicans who complain about “activist judges” who rule against their agenda.

  2. Yes.. I can see that, but what I was pointing to just as much was this:
    Let’s say Castro dies.
    And the Cubans hold an election ….. now bear in mind that there is much about the Cuban economy for which they should be rightly proud …. and one of the candidates in that election makes Castro himself look like a right winger.
    It was clearly OMOV, and the result gave the extremist the seat, there could be similar rumblings, but the US Govt would be the first in line to blow such rumblings into full-scale diplomatic affair, even if the UN had supervised the vote there.

    They want to do as they see fit, yet impose their own view of World Order on everyone else.

    I don’t recall any such rumours in the UK, and it’s not just a question of scale – it’s about efficieny and a desire to do the best by the people.

  3. The concept that I found the hardest to accept in my development as a right wing political junkie was that not all governments and cultures are equally good. (As in good v. evil sense.) Despite your hypothetical about Cuba, let’s look at the real world example of Argentina instead. Many of us believe that Hugo Chavez is a warlord and a despot, and yet when he survived the presidential referendum, we as a country didn’t rush out and say that Argentina’s election was a failure.

    What you see as imposition of our view of World Order, I see as a well-meant effort to bring other countries along for the ride. “Freedom at the muzzle of an American gun,” some would say. It’s not always the case, and I cannot agree with your view that that is America’s cultural ethos.

  4. Taking your second point though, it may be ‘well-meant’, but it’s also flawed. It’s flawed in that not everyone wants to join, and some don’t even want to be anywhere close to the theme park.
    Behind anyone wanting another to join anything is an agenda, and when it comes to the level of a country, people will look at how that country has conducted itself as a guide to how the ride might be.
    What I’m talking here about is “The US of A”, not individual Americans. As an average guy, I view individuals as being okay but the country as being something else as the country is mainly controlled by a few individuals – just as in any country, democracy or not.

    What you seem to be implying in the first part is that some govt’s and cultures can be ‘evil’, but that too is a subjective measure, and when applied can be equally distorting. People are evil, and cultures are determined by people. Change the person at the top, change the culture, but it’s still a subjective viewpoint and if we are subjected to the media proclaiming that a certain country is evil, we have to question not only why they are saying that in terms of the effect they are having on us, but also the effect they are having on their own people. All countries have their human rights abuses, even the UK and US.
    And if it’s a politician that says it ……. well, they have an even bigger and undoubtedly more private agenda.

    It’s down to perception. I saw what I thought was pro-Bush reporting on the BBC here for instance, but they would shout their innocence at me.

    Whatever..I still think that given the Floridian debacle of 2000, that not enough was done to make sure that no-one had cause to point this time save for being petulant losers. The ongoing evidence suggests they didn’t do it.

Comments are closed.