Land of the free? New reports shows the US ranks dead last in electoral integrity.

[pantsonfire]

Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

As if further proof could possibly be needed of the sorry state of the American electoral process, a new study just ranked the United States dead last in electoral integrity among established Western democracies.

The Electoral Integrity Project (EIP)'s 2015 Year in Elections report is an independent research project by 2,000 elections experts from Harvard University and the University of Sydney in Australia assembled to examine the world's elections.

The EIP states that "the core notion of 'electoral integrity' refers to agreed international principles and standards of elections, applying universally to all countries worldwide throughout the electoral cycle, including during the pre-electoral period, the campaign, and on polling day and its aftermath. Conversely, 'electoral malpractice' refers to violations of electoral integrity."

"The report gathers assessments from over 2,000 experts to evaluate the perceived integrity of all 180 national parliamentary and presidential contests held between July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2015 in 139 countries worldwide. These include 54 national elections held last year. Indeed, the 2016 elections have proven the system so rigged, even those who'd previously still harbored illusions our democracy is fair, have begun to come to terms with the truth: the political establishment's corporatist plutocrats choose their own to install in the White House every four years.

Hillary Clinton 'winning' Wyoming's primary despite being summarily trounced by Bernie Sanders in the popular vote — with her 44 percent to his 56 percent — simply evidence the latest example of the farcical illusion of choice revealed by EIP. Superdelegates — who aren't beholden to vote for a candidate according to the popular choice and could potentially sway the nomination — are causing an even greater uproar among Democrats fed up with the establishment's obvious favorite candidate, Hillary.

Though reasons why the United States has reached this new low in fair elections are complex, critics often point to the tidal wave of corporate cash after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. But this may be somewhat misguided. Would removing cash automatically bring some voting power back to the public? Perhaps to an extent. But it also ignores the will of the establishment to ensure its rulers always win — in other words, where there's a will there's a way.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

[Scuba]

1. Silly lefties. Unicorns, rainbows and fair elections are just blue sky pipe dreams.

Now shush!

[pantsonfire]

2. K&R +Murica n/t

[oasis]

3. Citizens United will be defeated with Hillary's Supreme Court.

The U.S. process will be greatly improved by the next general election.

[JudyM]

6. Did you forget to add the sarcasm drip?

[oasis]

8. Did you forget Citizens United was on Hillary's hit list since her

campaign began?

[JudyM]

10. Ridiculous! She is driving its engine at 120 mph, are you for real??!!

[oasis]

13. Hillary believes it's wiser to fight fire with fire.

You can't take on the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelman, T. Boone Pickens and other ultra right wing billionaires in the general election on a shoestring budget.

[casperthegm]

19. fight fire with fire = take bribe money to fight bribe money

I think that, in a nutshell, is the difference between Sanders and Clinton supporters. We believe that a grassroots effort, supported by the people will win in the end. Of course, the HRC supporters generally see Sanders supporters as naive anyway, so they can add this to the list...

[oasis]

22. And promising free stuff isn't a bribe.

[casperthegm]

23. Oh, the "free stuff" argument again...

Oh yeah, those Bernie supporters; they are so naive. They think that Bernie is going to give them everything for free. Good lord. Everything has a cost. Nobody is disputing that. His plan is clearly laid out and has been reviewed by many economists. A good portion of the expenses will be covered by billionaires and corporations paying their fair share. But you already know this, don't you?

[oasis]

27. Convincing "billionaires and corporations" to kick in for

the common good would be a neat trick. Unfortunately, none of the above were seen at any of those massive Bernie rallies.

[casperthegm]

30. Ah ha, there's our difference

(Well, I think it's clear we have a few differences) But anyway...Bernie isn't taking the Hillary approach, you know the one where she sternly told the banks to "cut it out." He's not, and we're not, asking for permission or trying to convince the billionaires it's the right thing to do. I could give a rats @$$ whether or not they are on board. They are the 1%. We are the 99%. Time for the actions of politicians to reflect that number. And we're here to make sure that they do what we tell them to. Win or lose this election, we aren't going away.

[oasis]

32. The goals of the 99% should rightly be pursued. No argument there. n/t

[beedle]

26. Promising to reprioritize taxes and spending to provide programs the people want

is a 'bribe' now???

Is that how Hillary supporters think? Taking bribes is okay, listening to the people is 'bribery'?

No wonder the Democratic party is shrinking and locking itself in a bubble and has no new ideas, even their lame attacks are at least 2 decades out of date (throwing $1 bills at strippers.) .... lay off the Flint tap water.

[oasis]

29. No "Flint tap water" and definitely no Kool Aid. (eom)

[beedle]

31. Then where are you getting this "free stuff" nonsense?

Are you just lying for the hell of it?

[oasis]

33. Only Hillary is susceptible to "bribes"? See post #19.

Bribes come in all forms.

[casperthegm]

34. sorry to jump in...

But grass roots efforts to let the voices of the 99% be heard is not exactly bribery, is it? Anything can be spun to fit an argument but this one seems like a bit of a stretch. Apparently opinions vary.

[oasis]

35. It can be "spun" as bribe if it's attributed to Hillary. Got it.

[beedle]

36. You're not making any sense. Read #19 yourself

Look, I don't really care if Hillary is guilty or not, and even if she is, AND NO she is not the only one susceptible to bribes ... THAT"S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT!!!!

The whole system is ripe for bribery, I don't even trust Bernie to remain above the influence in this environment, but so far he's the only fucking candidate that has even tried to show a little bit of integrity on this issue. Hillary is beyond saving, her record is one of very poor judgment at every turn, the only reason she's not in jail right now is because she's a Clinton, one of the protected class whose crimes are dismissed with "vast right wing conspiracy" even when they come from the left.

[casperthegm]

37. Well said beedle

I assure you, I found your points to be clear and concise.

[oasis]

38. The author of post 19 introduces "bribes" into the

discussion. From my standpoint, Hillary is no more influenced by Wall Street than throngs of Bernie supporters are influenced by promises of "free stuff". Both can be considered "bribes".

[casperthegm]

12. On her hit list....

While she takes full advantage of all the money that it offers her campaign. Essentially; "I'm taking advantage of it now, but I promise, once I get elected I'm going to stop taking all of the money and put an end to it." Pardon me if I don't buy this load of manure...

[oasis]

14. See post #13. nt

[reddread]

15. for 353,000 dollars you can remind George Clooney

but he already knows there is a problem.

[oasis]

16. That's why Clooney trusts Hill to nominate Supreme Court justices

who will overturn Citizens United.

[reddread]

17. will she get Brock's help on that?

proven track record.
maybe Bill will be her nominee?

[oasis]

20. Some will crack wise for the next four years, while others will roll

up their sleeves and make valuable contributions to begin a successful Democratic administration.

[reddread]

21. she aint getting there from here

but it will be an exciting four years!

[VulgarPoet]

24. If by "exciting" you mean "I can smell the rubble and blood of dying servicemen and women"

then yeah! The next four years will be INCREDIBLY exciting.

"May you live in interesting times."

[reddread]

25. I certainly dont

[VulgarPoet]

7. Don't I wish I could believe that.

Unfortunately, every time Hillary so much as breathes, the carbon dioxide that leaves her lips comes out in a crooked molecular structure.

[oasis]

11. Believe it or not. You can bundle every dream you have with Bernie

but at some point you're going to have to wake up to reality.

[reddread]

18. Sanders supporters arent the ones bundling

[TheBlackAdder]

28. DUzy!

[VulgarPoet]

4. In the laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand of the sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

and the home, of the, slaves...

[Tarc]

5. So Harvard people can't understand math, re Wyoming? Poor people, guess they should've gone to Yale

[pampango]

9. Damn. 11 of the top 12 are in Europe. Electoral integrity is not impossible.

From the study itself:

In the United States, the 2012 Presidential election and the 2014 Congressional elections were ranked worst of any long-established democracy, especially on campaign finance and electoral registration.

By contrast, however, experts ranked nine elections very highly in meeting international standards of electoral integrity, including in Denmark (ranked 1st), Finland, Estonia, Switzerland, Poland, Portugal, Israel, and Canada.

Experts also rated elections positively in some developing countries and newer democracies, including in Benin, Croatia, and Lesotho.

Some notable gains also occurred last year, although contests had room for further improvements, including in Nigeria and Myanmar.



https://sites.google.com/site/electoralintegrityproject4/projects/expert-survey-2/the-year-in-elections-2015

Interesting that among the Arab Spring countries Tunisia ranks much higher than the US while Syria is at the bottom.