As much as I love this, fo so many reasons, both as an argument tool and a sincere belief, the question that has to follow is "who?" Countries currying favor can get it by sending "international observers" who observe with bias. Random assignments and/or certifications can be politicized too. I can't wait until come up with thoughts, but you're the expert here (not in elections, IIRC). I just keep thinking of the power refs in sports to make or break a game (I hear there is one coming soon). Good refs that don't have a stake in the outcome make for a fair game, but this is more than a shirt and a whistle.
I'm absolutely not an expert in international elections observation, although I have participated in related issues, and know many, many who are. I see your point here for sure, but also realize from the response that I need to clarify my arguments when I get a chance to actually do a round of editing -- because rather, than any overarching aim to *actually* achieve either the future possibility of such a program or provide a substantive framework to that end: my ultimate objective is simply forcing elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum to confront the proposal, given that in order to avoid doing so, their fundamental commitments to the sincerity of respective rhetorical political claims cannot survive in the face of such avoidance or refusal to consider the possibility. I guess another way to say this is that I view the mere *idea* of proposing international election observers as a way to put political leaders to the test -- in what I see as a method to separate the usual cynical, performative bullshit from substantive demonstration of sincere believe demonstrable in actions instead of mere words. Don't know if that makes much sense or not (exhausted from another all-nighter), but I will try to clarify my arguments when time frees up for an editing round!
I agree it's a great way to turn the weaponization of election integrity into the retort. If I'm jumping to that next level, those who weaponize will jump to to turn the argument by saying it's abad faith one to impose "globalized election control" or some other weaponize term. While I don't think there is an obvious answer to my question, maybe a counter to it could be something like "that's what we need to all put pressure for a debate" keeps your point center and subtly alter the focus from election security being a bugaboo/dog whistle to disarming it. Make it heard but also take away it's power to attack.
(If the conversation moves to being a real one, that would be good too)
As much as I love this, fo so many reasons, both as an argument tool and a sincere belief, the question that has to follow is "who?" Countries currying favor can get it by sending "international observers" who observe with bias. Random assignments and/or certifications can be politicized too. I can't wait until come up with thoughts, but you're the expert here (not in elections, IIRC). I just keep thinking of the power refs in sports to make or break a game (I hear there is one coming soon). Good refs that don't have a stake in the outcome make for a fair game, but this is more than a shirt and a whistle.
Any thoughts on this as a follow up issue?
I'm absolutely not an expert in international elections observation, although I have participated in related issues, and know many, many who are. I see your point here for sure, but also realize from the response that I need to clarify my arguments when I get a chance to actually do a round of editing -- because rather, than any overarching aim to *actually* achieve either the future possibility of such a program or provide a substantive framework to that end: my ultimate objective is simply forcing elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum to confront the proposal, given that in order to avoid doing so, their fundamental commitments to the sincerity of respective rhetorical political claims cannot survive in the face of such avoidance or refusal to consider the possibility. I guess another way to say this is that I view the mere *idea* of proposing international election observers as a way to put political leaders to the test -- in what I see as a method to separate the usual cynical, performative bullshit from substantive demonstration of sincere believe demonstrable in actions instead of mere words. Don't know if that makes much sense or not (exhausted from another all-nighter), but I will try to clarify my arguments when time frees up for an editing round!
I agree it's a great way to turn the weaponization of election integrity into the retort. If I'm jumping to that next level, those who weaponize will jump to to turn the argument by saying it's abad faith one to impose "globalized election control" or some other weaponize term. While I don't think there is an obvious answer to my question, maybe a counter to it could be something like "that's what we need to all put pressure for a debate" keeps your point center and subtly alter the focus from election security being a bugaboo/dog whistle to disarming it. Make it heard but also take away it's power to attack.
(If the conversation moves to being a real one, that would be good too)