Perhaps it didn't occur to you that the best way to prove you're having fair and open elections is to invite objective observers to come in and see for themselves?

I wasn't aware that we needed to prove that our elections were fair and open, except to moonbats. Further, anyone who trusts the UN as 'objective' is either incredibly stupid or phenomonally deluded. What evidence, precisely, do you have that the UN is or ever has been 'objective?'

The UN actually has a reasonable record supervising elections. They didn't do a bad job in East Timor.

That being said, the idea that the US needs UN observers to monitor elections, even with the Florida absurdities of last time, is ludicrous. You might have been able to make a reasonable claim for needing outside election monitors in the pre-civil rights era South. In such a case, though, the ideal choice would have been a neutral democratic country such as Sweden or Switzerland. Its certainly not needed today.

Incredible. The UN is a dictator's playground and shot with corruption through and through (can you say "oil for food?"). We are a 228 year old democracy with a record to be proud of. We're Americans, and we can supervise our own damn elections.

And did it occur to these barking moonbats that some in the UN might have an agenda to discover irregularities whether they're there or not? What would that do to the legitemacy of the process?

Hmm. Despite what many liberals may think, our system did work in 2000, despite the snafu with Florida. It could have run a bit smoother, and several states should upgrade their voting methods, but the transition was calm and dignified (for the most part). Representative democracy is messy. It's actually been pretty smooth most of our history.

Nevertheless, we got screwed with the likes of Bush. We have only ourselves to blame.

"I wasn't aware that we needed to prove that our elections were fair and open, except to moonbats."

A very large proportion of the population thinks that there were significant problems with the 2000 election. This puts that specific point well out of moonbat range. Really.

Hmmm, a large proportion of the population also believes in astrology and extraterrestrials. Presumably this means they're out of moonbat range as well?

Further, as seems to be your wont, you've taken something I did say and conflated it with a straw man in order to win some silly rhetorical point. I didn't say there weren't problems with the 2000 elections. I said that I wasn't aware that we needed to prove that our elections were fair and open. (Just a thought: next time, read what you're cutting and pasting.) Let me offer you what may be disturbing news: the 2004 elections will have significant problems. So will the 2008, 2012, and 2016 election, and I wouldn't hold out much hope for 2020 or beyond. Let's not even consider the elections from 1788-1996, since all of them also had significant problems. The only thing special about the 2000 election was that the election was close enough that the problems were made visible. So are you arguing that close elections are unfair because there are problems, but elections won by bigger margins are perfectly fair even though they experience similar or identical problems? Or has every election in American history been unfair? Please, I'm curious to know what your position is here, not to mention your proposed fix to make the moonbats happy. No, wait, I know what will make the moonbats happy: if Kerry wins in November, the elections will be proven fair; if he loses, they'll be unfair. And whether you're willing to admit it or not, that's the only criterion that will effect the perceived 'fairness' of the 2004 elections.