pixiecrinkle (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
pixiecrinkle) wrote2004-08-09 01:22 pm
pixiecrinkle) wrote2004-08-09 01:22 pm
Ummmm....okay.
So, the US presidential election is going to have international observers.
Here's what I don't get: it seems from the article that there was some oppostion to this. In addition, the very-unscientific CNN poll off that page asking whether there should be int'l observers showed a 50-50 split when I looked at it.
This seems to me to be one of those "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind" kind of situations. Which to me, screams "PR nightmare" for any elected official opposing it.
Am I missing something here because of my own bias? Is there some other reason we wouldn't want impartial observers? Are they assuming the observers aren't impartial? I'll admit some naivete when it comes to how the UN fits in to politics, so maybe there is something that makes this readily clear.
Here's what I don't get: it seems from the article that there was some oppostion to this. In addition, the very-unscientific CNN poll off that page asking whether there should be int'l observers showed a 50-50 split when I looked at it.
This seems to me to be one of those "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind" kind of situations. Which to me, screams "PR nightmare" for any elected official opposing it.
Am I missing something here because of my own bias? Is there some other reason we wouldn't want impartial observers? Are they assuming the observers aren't impartial? I'll admit some naivete when it comes to how the UN fits in to politics, so maybe there is something that makes this readily clear.