Blast from the past: Jimmy Carter in 2004 on US elections
This was originally posted by me in 2004, just before the election. It continues to ring as true today as it did eight years ago:
***
So here's a snippet of transcript from Terry Gross' interview on Fresh Air with former President Jimmy Carter [ed. note: starts about 4:58 into the interview] :
Gross: ...One of the things you do with your Carter Center is to monitor elections around the world and you've monitored over fifty elections around the world. We are facing a U.S. presidential election here and, um, I'm wondering if America was a foreign country and it had asked you to monitor the election, would it meet your criteria - could you monitor the American elections if you were asked-?
Carter: No, we wouldn't think of it. The American political system wouldn't measure up to any sort of international standard, for several reasons. One is that, uh, there has to be, ah, a provision in the countries where we monitor - we've just finished our fifty-second one - that all the qualified candidates have equal access to the public through the media - through television/radio - and they don't have to pay for it. Whereas in this country, there's no way that you can hope to be the nominee of the Democratic or Republican Party unless you have the proven ability to raise, nowadays, a hundred million dollars contributions from special interest groups. Some of the interest groups are benevolent; I might hasten to add - that's one thing we wouldn't - it wouldn't qualify -
Gross: Why, why do you have this as a qualification, as a criteria [sic]?
Carter: Why?
Gross: Yeah.
Carter: Well, because we think that the ability to run for office - and to be seriously considered as a candidate should not depend on how much money you can collect to pay for the right to give your campaign platform explanations to the public.
Gross: Okay. Other reasons why we would not fulfill your criteria?
Carter: The second reason is we don't go into a country unless there is a central election commission that is recognized generally as being non-partisan or bipartisan and that is a balanced position between or among the different parties. We have nothing like that. As you know in Florida in the year 2000 the secretary of state, ahh there, who was in charge of the Florida election, was an avowed and fervent and very obvious Republican activist-
Gross: This was Katherine Harris.
Carter: Katherine Harris, and she was later elected to the Congress because the Republicans appreciated what she had done for President Bush. And this time, uh, the new secretary of state, who replaced Katherine Harris, was not elected, she was appointed to that very important partisan position, by the governor who happens to be President Bush's brother. So there's no semblance of a balanced commission that would be objective among the different candidates. I mean, they don't even deny the fact that they are fervent Republican activists. Another facet of requirements is that all the people in ah, uh, in a country, or certainly a state, should vote in exactly the same way. Either punch cards or touch screens or whatever, uh, whereas in Florida and many other states, it depends on which, oh what preferences the county officials have. So you might have - like in Florida in 2000 - multiple ways to vote, uh, and quite often the more affluent districts or precincts are the most certain to have their votes counted accurately, because the rich people insist on it. Whereas the poor people don't really have the political influence to insist that their votes be handled properly. That's another very important facet, and the third thing is, the fourth thing, I think now, is if there is a technological advanced way to vote there must be some way for a physical recount if it's very close. We just finished an election not too long ago in a Third World country that had a touch screen technique (the system was developed in the United States, previously in Spain) but in addition to casting their vote, after they punched the touch screen, uh the, final, uh, button, out comes a paper ballot showing you exactly how you voted. So you look at the paper ballot and you make sure that is the way I wanted my vote to be cast, and you fold up the ballot and put it in a box. So afterwards if there is a doubt about the technology or the touch screen techniques (since it's all secret and you can't see it), then you can recount by using a paper ballot. With only less than two weeks to go now in Florida, that is a matter of major concern in the Federal courts. Is there going to be a way in Florida to have a recount with paper ballots or some other certifiable way, if there is a very close election as we had four years ago?
This entry was originally posted at http://badger2305.dreamwidth.org/6765.html. Feel free to comment here or there, using OpenID.
***
So here's a snippet of transcript from Terry Gross' interview on Fresh Air with former President Jimmy Carter [ed. note: starts about 4:58 into the interview] :
Gross: ...One of the things you do with your Carter Center is to monitor elections around the world and you've monitored over fifty elections around the world. We are facing a U.S. presidential election here and, um, I'm wondering if America was a foreign country and it had asked you to monitor the election, would it meet your criteria - could you monitor the American elections if you were asked-?
Carter: No, we wouldn't think of it. The American political system wouldn't measure up to any sort of international standard, for several reasons. One is that, uh, there has to be, ah, a provision in the countries where we monitor - we've just finished our fifty-second one - that all the qualified candidates have equal access to the public through the media - through television/radio - and they don't have to pay for it. Whereas in this country, there's no way that you can hope to be the nominee of the Democratic or Republican Party unless you have the proven ability to raise, nowadays, a hundred million dollars contributions from special interest groups. Some of the interest groups are benevolent; I might hasten to add - that's one thing we wouldn't - it wouldn't qualify -
Gross: Why, why do you have this as a qualification, as a criteria [sic]?
Carter: Why?
Gross: Yeah.
Carter: Well, because we think that the ability to run for office - and to be seriously considered as a candidate should not depend on how much money you can collect to pay for the right to give your campaign platform explanations to the public.
Gross: Okay. Other reasons why we would not fulfill your criteria?
Carter: The second reason is we don't go into a country unless there is a central election commission that is recognized generally as being non-partisan or bipartisan and that is a balanced position between or among the different parties. We have nothing like that. As you know in Florida in the year 2000 the secretary of state, ahh there, who was in charge of the Florida election, was an avowed and fervent and very obvious Republican activist-
Gross: This was Katherine Harris.
Carter: Katherine Harris, and she was later elected to the Congress because the Republicans appreciated what she had done for President Bush. And this time, uh, the new secretary of state, who replaced Katherine Harris, was not elected, she was appointed to that very important partisan position, by the governor who happens to be President Bush's brother. So there's no semblance of a balanced commission that would be objective among the different candidates. I mean, they don't even deny the fact that they are fervent Republican activists. Another facet of requirements is that all the people in ah, uh, in a country, or certainly a state, should vote in exactly the same way. Either punch cards or touch screens or whatever, uh, whereas in Florida and many other states, it depends on which, oh what preferences the county officials have. So you might have - like in Florida in 2000 - multiple ways to vote, uh, and quite often the more affluent districts or precincts are the most certain to have their votes counted accurately, because the rich people insist on it. Whereas the poor people don't really have the political influence to insist that their votes be handled properly. That's another very important facet, and the third thing is, the fourth thing, I think now, is if there is a technological advanced way to vote there must be some way for a physical recount if it's very close. We just finished an election not too long ago in a Third World country that had a touch screen technique (the system was developed in the United States, previously in Spain) but in addition to casting their vote, after they punched the touch screen, uh the, final, uh, button, out comes a paper ballot showing you exactly how you voted. So you look at the paper ballot and you make sure that is the way I wanted my vote to be cast, and you fold up the ballot and put it in a box. So afterwards if there is a doubt about the technology or the touch screen techniques (since it's all secret and you can't see it), then you can recount by using a paper ballot. With only less than two weeks to go now in Florida, that is a matter of major concern in the Federal courts. Is there going to be a way in Florida to have a recount with paper ballots or some other certifiable way, if there is a very close election as we had four years ago?
This entry was originally posted at http://badger2305.dreamwidth.org/6765.html. Feel free to comment here or there, using OpenID.