On the one hand, the UN making a resolution that they won’t trust the results of the US elections would play right into the hands of what some MAGAs are saying.
But MAGAs then agreeing to any UN resolution, especially one that requires third party oversight…
I’d say the odds are even on this.
barsoap@lemm.ee 1 week ago
The OSCE reports are usually just shy of scathing. The US reaction to those missions ranges, as far as I’m aware, from being completely oblivious to it or its results to Sheriffs trying to arrest observers.
Jikiya@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Well the reason is that there are state laws against outside observers, and no treaty giving any foreign government the ability to monitor. So they’re just enforcing the laws, as they’re supposed to.
Mind you I’m not saying the UN or any other nation is going to interfere, but seems really important to follow laws around voting to make sure the attitude of enforcement isn’t lax.
barsoap@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I’m not too familiar with the specific legal status of the OSCE in American law, I bet there’s a treaty or the other, but generally speaking a) you’re a member and b) you regularly send out your own people as OSCE mission members into other countries to observe elections and c) Every member state gets observed (alongside non-member countries inviting the OSCE because it’s a stamp of approval and can help stabilise democracies, establish trust in the procedures). Cursory observations are done for basically all elections that aren’t strictly regional, more in-depth ones every couple of elections. It’s democracies holding each other accountable.
If Bumfuck, TX, wants to make a statement against Canadians observing their elections that’s their god-damned right but it’s also the duty of Washington to shut them the fuck up.
Jikiya@lemmy.world 6 days ago
Well you go ahead and find those treaties for me, since I’ve never gotten a result back from a search. And I’d like to believe but have no proof of that.