Elections in the US

It may seem a bit weird, but US elections have foreign observers just like we send to other countries. We had 'em in the 2000 elections, and boy howdy are we going to have 'em this time around. This time around they're expecting to see shenanigans, and with good cause.

It is widely expected that there will be lawsuits over the election results after next Tuesday. We may get lucky in that the winner of the race will have an incontrovertible lead, but current poll results show that to be very unlikely. Already the courts have been busy handling issues relating to elections, everything from whether or not felons can really vote, to how absentee ballots are handled, provisional ballot handling, and outright challenges to voting methods.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will be having observers monitoring our elections this year. They've been here in 2000 and 1996, so this isn't new. What is new is that they already are expressing grave concerns over election issues so far. And they're not alone.

A couple days ago on NPR's Fresh Air, Jimmy Carter was interviewed. Former President Jimmy Carter heads the Carter Center, an organization that performs election monitoring in other countries. On air, Carter expressed concern over the state of US elections, and mentioned that by the Carter Center's own criteria, they would not monitor US elections. The prime reasons being twofold:

1: There is no one independent agency to organize US elections
2: Voting methods vary so widely

Both criticisms descend directly from the US's federal beginnings. Elections are the purview of the States, not the Federal Government. Voters in each state indicate their preference for a President, the State apportions its Electors as appropriate per the stated preference, and the Electors elect the President. Further, States frequently delegate the handling of elections to local county or municipal units. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is there to regulate the financing of elections to Federal posts, not to regulate how those elections are performed.

After the 2000 elections proved that court action can have defining impact upon a contested election, all aspects of the election process are under review by lawyers from both sides. Everything from voter registration, which classes of people are legally disenfranchised (denied the vote by law), who may vote absentee, how absentee votes are counted, how mistakes in the process are handled, how accessible polling places are, hours of polling places, the actual voting method, how to define and handle spoiled ballots, what constitutes a valid vote, how votes are reported to the appropriate authorities, how electors are selected, how those electors vote, and who constitutes a valid elector. No state in the US, bar Florida, has ever seen the kind of litigious scrutiny of the elections process as they will see this year. And that translates into big trouble.

As the world learned in the aftermath of the 2000 elections, the US constitution has specific and detailed deadlines for what must happen when to elect a President. Since those parts of the constitution were drafted in days when horses and wind-powered ships were the fastest way to travel, time was allowed for official results to get to central authorities. While this does open up a window in which court battles can be fought without having the election wind up in the House of Representatives, it isn't a large window on the scale of court-battles and appeals. The Supreme Court will almost definitely be involved in this election, probably on multiple matters.

It would seem that someone in Ohio made a fundamental mistake in appointing electors. A seated US Congressman was listed as an elector, a constitutionally invalid choice. The elector in question may have resigned the spot already, and a replacement may be appointed. This is something else that could cause havoc come next Tuesday. Had that elector cast a vote, and Ohio being the swing-state it has been this election, and then had his vote invalidated, it could have caused neither Bush or Kerry to get the required 270 electoral votes and thus push the Election into the hands of the House of Representatives.

Should it actually get to the House, the voting procedure is one that the US hasn't seen since the first half of the 19th century. First off, it is the new House that does the voting and not the old one. Then, each State gets one and only one vote to cast. A majority of votes is required to become President (and Vice-President). Since that election is by state and not by-representative, the State delegations will have to figure out who to cast their vote for.

I'm not 100% sure that it'll land in the House should the deadlines pass. The Supreme Court may lay down edicts that the final selection may be put off a bit in order to better get a handle on pending litigation. There is a far outside limit clearly defined in the 12th amendment that states that should the selection of President not be completed by March 4th, the job goes to the Vice President until a selection can be formally made.

As you can see, nothing is truly clear. Fortunately, the 20th amendment sheds a bit more light on the issue. This is where it is specified that it is the new House that does the business. It further lines out a procedure to handle the appointment of a President should the Electoral process not yield a candidate with the required majority, the Congress can make a law to that effect. Which it did in 1948. The Speaker of the House shall assume the Presidency until such time as the legal debates come to a consensus as to who won the election.

Should the Speaker (Dennis Hastert, R-IL) become President, Bush would no longer be President as his term officially ends on Jan 20, 2005. The office of Vice President would be appointed by Hastert, and then ratified by Congress as VP. Ford was during the Nixon Administration.

So there is quite a lot at stake here. The hope of both candidates are to get enough incontrovertible Electoral votes to carry them over 270, and at that point the legal battles will die down. But if neither has enough solid Electoral votes, we get the battles the groundwork is already being laid out for. Neither side wants to see the election in the hands of the House as it could rightly be seen as a 'failure of democracy'.

It should prove a very interesting November.

Supreme court again

So our Chief Justice just got treated for thyroid cancer. This makes four out of nine. Also, all but one are over the 'standard' retirement age of 65. The next president will almost definately have multiple Supreme Court nominations to make, and possibly even Chief Justice.

And with the Senate more partisan than ever, those appointments are going to take a very long time to complete (should Kerry win). Or not (should Bush win).

Torture, new news

The Independant has released a story telling that the Pentagon has found 28 soldiers guilty over the deaths of two Taliban suspects in Afganistan. Since the event happened in December of 2002, it preceeds Abu Ghraib.

In other news (pdf), a letter has been released to the public from a Guantanamo detainee. Miraculously censored. The author of the letter claims to have witnessed the deaths of two fellow detainees. Moazzam Begg has been in solitary confinement for a very long time, and it is theorized that this is because he is a witness and is being kept separate.

Couple these two findings with what is already known about Abu Ghraib and you have a good case for a culture permissive to torture in the US armed forces. Should these two stories gain the required media attention, it could actually affect the current presidenial race. And if it breaks afterwards with a Bush presidency, it could mean real trouble for Bush and his advisors. I've already explained about that. Several times, as you can see.

The Supreme Court and vacancies

It is widely pointed out that the next President will get the chance to appoint someone to the highest court in the land. GW Bush hasn't had one yet, and he might if he wins another term. Kerry has the same chance, but when a possible second term is factored in he is more likely to face multiple.

Judicial appointments have been contentious in the last decade. Clinton had real trouble getting people in, and in the mean time the federal bench had more openings. If Kerry does not have a 51-member Democratic caucus in the Senate when his first appointment comes, it could be a very long time before a nomination is completed. If memory serves, the first Bush had a heck of a time getting a candidate who could pass muster.

Supreme Court nominations have to be confirmed by the Senate, of course, so it could be said that it is the Senate who actually decides who gets the seat. If a 53-member Republican caucus votes together, they can keep the seat open until they get someone they like better. Presidents are allowed to withdraw appointments should someone prove unworkable. It could mean many appointments until just the right candidate can pass Senate muster.

Because of this, various democratic litmus tests won't really be compatible with the litmus tests the controlling republicans would be applying. The best that can be hoped for is someone like Souter who essentially changed sides not long after joining the bench. An appointee will have to have either no or negative opinions of Roe v. Wade, for example. With partisanship becoming more and more common in the formerly reserved Senate, such behavior is to be expected.

Far right extremists

I've heard tell that a Canadian Blogger has pointed out that in the rest of the world, both Kerry and Bush would be considered right-wing extremists. If that "Rest of the world" includes mostly Europe, they are very correct. Both candidates have almost no socialist leanings which is what puts them into that class.

Presumably, both Bush and Kerry's attitudes towards domestic social attitudes will come out in detail in tonight's debate. But the stated opinions of both candidates place them firmly into right-wing parties on the continent (ahem). Britain, for example, has a cradle-to-the-grave welfare system. Germany has some of the strongest worker-protections around. Norway has one of the most onerous tax structures around;but the government does a lot, far more than an American would be comfortable with. National Health Care is common in Europe's developed countries.

Our welfare system is rather draconian. It has limits to how long you can be on it before you are removed from the roles. This is deliberate in order to incent people into getting higher-paying jobs that contribute to the public funds.

Our healthcare system is almost completely privatized. The US and some States chip in to pay for treatment for various classes of people, but the treatment is almost all at private clinics. The one big exception to this is the Veterans Administration. Medicare/Medicaid are subsidization programs to pay for private care.

Our pension plans are a bit more liberal, but still no where near European standards. Social Security is a pseudo-governmental payment for years of work designed to keep seniors off of the streets. I say 'pseudo-governmental' since in theory you pay your own benefits later in life, but in reality it is current workers who pay your benefit.

Our worker protections are much less than is commonly found in Europe. Union-membership has been languishing in the low-teens for a very long time now. The most extreme example is to compare against Germany. The German system has a standard work-week that is something like 35 hours a week. Plus, vacation is paid vacation by law, and you get a lot more of it than you get on US soil.

All of these have been on the democratic agenda at one point, or are even still in the party platform, but none of 'em are really viable in this climate. For one, worker protections hamper business growth, which causes businesses to argue against them. Secondly, healthcare costs have been rising in Europe too, which has caused budget crisis in many nations just from that. It is for these reasons that both Bush and Kerry are right-wing wackos.

Fear-mongering over the draft

It annoys me that certain elements in the Democratic party think that rumor mongering over a potential draft is a good idea. Yes, it plays on our fears. No, a draft is not going to happen.

Nope, not gonna happen.

Even the Pentagon has stated, several times, that a draft is a bad idea in the current situation. And they are completely right. A concsript army facing daily bombings and a fear campaign from insurgents will be vastly less capable of doing their job in that environment than a volunteer army can. It's hard enough when you signed up to be there.

What really cheeses me off is that part of the fear-mongering is that "bills in congress are already in place to reinstate the draft" (insert doomy music here). Thing is? The legislation was submitted by Democratic congressmen. The legislation has about as much chance of passing as, say, lifting all trade restrictions to Cuba. Not gonna happen.

The role of the EU vs US

To Americans, the European Union looks a lot like an attempt to create a "United States of Europe". This is rather far from the truth, as the Union was conceived as a way to keep Europe from its long history of war and to create prosperity. It was not designed to create a strong federal government of the sort the US enjoys.

The idea of a European Union was created in the 1950's, when western European continental states who had been the stomping ground of armies since the 1500's (or earlier) decided that enough was enough. The idea was put forward that if everyone was prospering, the need for war would be diminished. Thus, trade barriers were reduced and commerce flourished. Slowly additional nations signed on until we get today's EU which is several times the size of the original 1950's version.

The EU will probably never have a central government as strong or influential as the US federal government. It can be argued that the US founding-fathers sought each State to have its own government and the Federal government only came in when inter-State commerce or defense of the nation was being considered. Over the past two hundred plus years the Federal government of the US has increased in power to the point where comparing California to the US government and France to the EU government is not a close comparison. The big difference here is that France has a much longer history as a sovereign state than California (or even Texas) has. History weighs heavy to the traditionally-minded, so the power of the EU federal government will probably never gain as much influence as the US federal government.

The EU looks to soon have its first real challenge to the idea of an European Union, as various states rethink their participation. England is a prime example of a state that has been lukewarm to the idea all a long, and might consider pulling out at some point. Popular support of the EU is hard to accurately measure, as the people-on-the-street themselves don't have a good idea what "EU" means beyond foreign nationals meddling in their country and possibly the introduction of the Euro.

In a situation that does seem familiar to American observers, there is currently a rift in the EU regarding how to treat worker rights and what has been called 'family values' in the current election. In the one case, France is pressing for worker rights such as minimum wages and mandatory vacation-time. In the other case, places such as Ireland and Spain are having to offer abortions and may have to recognize gay marriages. The socialist leanings of France puts pressure on free-market advocates such as Britain and the former Soviet-bloc countries. The liberal leanings of Holland are putting pressure on conservative countries such as predominantly catholic Spain. The temptation is to throw a trantrum and leave the sandbox with all of your toys if you don't get your way, but the economic glue helps temper such instincts. If the EU survives this current challenge, it should be in a better place to survive for the long haul.

Is the EU supposed to be the 'second superpower' to challenge the US? Not entirely. For one, its federal bureaucracy isn't robust enough to be able to wield power as effectively as the US, even if their economic output rivals ours. The EU Presidency is not seen as nearly as 'strong' as the US Presidency. The EU does shell out more aid to foreign countries than the US does, but that hasn't done much to affect public opinion. Also US troops are still stationed all over EU member-states, largely thanks to NATO.

If the EU can survive the current internal debates, it should be in a solid position to wield effective power on the global stage. Perhaps the member-states (and future member-states) will find that the economic glue is a good thing, despite differences in opinion between east and west, and developed and under-developed.