Russian presidential elections

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7232389.stm

Europe's main election watchdog has said it will boycott Russia's presidential election on 2 March because of Moscow-imposed restrictions.
...
The ODIHR and Russia's election commission have been involved in a row over the size and time schedule of the observers' mission.

The ODIHR on Wednesday rejected a commission offer designed to avert a boycott. Russia said it would allow ODIHR observers to arrive on 20 February...

The commission also accepted an increase in the number of monitors, from 70 to 75.
75 observers is too few? There were 11 observers durung French presidential elections ans 12 on recent Polish parliamentary elections.

http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/eom.html?lsi=true&limit=10&pos=10

BBC said:
Monitors normally arrive in countries up to two months before voting takes place so they can observe the registration of candidates, campaigning and media coverage as well as the vote itself.
Really?

Federal elections in Switzerland
15 October: Mission opens
21 October: Election day

Parliamentary elections in Belgium
4 June: Mission opens
10 June: Election day

Parliamentary elections in Ireland
18 May: mission opens
24 May: election day

Parliamentary elections in the Netherlands
13 November: Mission opens
22 November: Election day
 
#2
Ok Sergey.

1. Get a map of the globe.
2. Look at the size of Russia
3. Now look at the size of France and Poland
4. Now consider that neither France or Poland are tin-pot, autocratic sh1tholes, which are an affront to democratic principles, being run by gangsters and Chekists.

Hope this helps.
 
#3
crabtastic said:
Ok Sergey.

1. Get a map of the globe.
2. Look at the size of Russia
3. Now look at the size of France and Poland
Crabtastic, size of population matters. ODIHR sent 1 observer for 3 mln. in the case with Poland and 1 observer for 5 mln. in the case with France.

By this standards it would be enough to send 29 - 48 observers to Russia.

crabtastic said:
4. Now consider that neither France or Poland are tin-pot, autocratic sh1tholes, which are an affront to democratic principles, being run by gangsters and Chekists.
It would be funny to hear such considerations from ODIHR. But they are wise enough not to sound it.

It is democratic principle: to treat all countries equally. This principle is violated and there are double standards. Russia is not a banana state.

crabtastic said:
Hope this helps.
However, you failed to explain, why does BBC openly lie.
 
#5
It is democratic principle: to treat all countries equally. This principle is violated and there are double standards.
Ideally yes, but when resources are limited, attention must be diverted to the most needy cases.

And if you are really comparing Russia to some of the most transparent and well established democracies on earth, you are out of your tree.

see here:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2007&country=7258
 
#6
parapauk said:
It is democratic principle: to treat all countries equally. This principle is violated and there are double standards.
Ideally yes, but when resources are limited, attention must be diverted to the most needy cases.

And if you are really comparing Russia to some of the most transparent and well established democracies on earth, you are out of your tree.

see here:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2007&country=7258
Freedom House? These nutters think that level of fredoms in Russia are equal to ones in Pakistan. Absurd.

Now let's look at the UK, its electoral system

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7203331.stm

UK vote system 'open to fraud'

It is "childishly simple" to register bogus voters in UK elections, a human rights body's investigation suggests.

The Council of Europe's report said the British voting system was "open to fraud", particularly with postal votes.

Its inquiry was prompted by a complaint from Tory MP David Wilshire, following concerns about fraud in local elections in Birmingham.
So it would be logical to expect that experts from ODIHR would monitor British elections but it hasn't happened.

Maybe you really think that British eelectoral system is the most transparent and well established on the Earth?
 
#7
Many would suggest that any country that wished to restrict independant monitoring of it's elections has something to hide, and I would agree with them. No system is perfect and all can benefit from constructive suggestion, ours included.

What have you to hide?
 
#8
codbutt said:
What's the point of observing an election when there is only one serious candidate?
Indeed there is only one serious candidate - mr.Medvedev - Putin's puppet, a fan of 'Deep Purple', boyish educated short bloke but at least not a former drug taker. There are many other potential serious candidates in ruling elite but it prefers (it is logical btw) to propose only one.

Other candidates are political clowns. I will not vote for them. However, I will not vote for mr.Medvedev for many reasons.

Does it mean that the elections are senseless? No. During decades Liberal Democratic party in Japan is at power and results of parliamentary elections are in fact predefined. But why? Japan is a successful, developed country. Voters appresiate stability, progress.

Pres.Putin managed to demostrate his skills as a leader and people appresiate it. Without real improvements in economics propaganda fails.

For example, in 1993 pres.Yeltsin using tanks dissolved Russin parliament but pro-Yeltin party (Democratic Russia) lost the elections and eventually vanished. There was another attempt to create pro-Yeltsin party (Our House Russia). On elections it had only 10%.

I assure you that if the Russians vote then it can not be explaned only by 'administrative resources', propaganda or fraud. In Russia unpopular politicians use to be thrown in to political waste bin very quickly. Unfortunately for Washington all his puppets are in the bin.
 
#9
"Open to fraud" vs. an effective one party state and a government staffed by former (?) members of the most notorious secret service on earth who also happen to control the only viable element of the economy, as well as the broadcast media. Mmmmm...
 
#10
maxi_77 said:
Many would suggest that any country that wished to restrict independant monitoring of it's elections has something to hide, and I would agree with them. No system is perfect and all can benefit from constructive suggestion, ours included.

What have you to hide?
There is nothing to hide I believe. But why does ODIHR refuse to send its monitors if Russian propositions (about numer of observers and the scope) are even better than ones in many other countries? Has Russia right to say: we wish to be treated as the USA and other European countries? This question remains unaswered.

Also, while in many countries (as in the UK) procedural violations is a common place then in Russia it is quite rare thing. So in fact ODIHR fears that it would fail to find any irregularities in the procedure.
 
#11
KGB_resident said:
maxi_77 said:
Many would suggest that any country that wished to restrict independant monitoring of it's elections has something to hide, and I would agree with them. No system is perfect and all can benefit from constructive suggestion, ours included.

What have you to hide?
There is nothing to hide I believe. But why does ODIHR refuse to send its monitors if Russian propositions (about numer of observers and the scope) are even better than ones in many other countries? Has Russia right to say: we wish to be treated as the USA and other European countries? This question remains unaswered.

Also, while in many countries (as in the UK) procedural violations is a common place then in Russia it is quite rare thing. So in fact ODIHR fears that it would fail to find any irregularities in the procedure.
My dear chap it is all about perception, the moment you quibble the rest of the world asks what are they trying to hide, if you are trying to score points, you have lost far more than you might ever gain, by acting like that nice Mr Mugabe.
 
#12
parapauk said:
"Open to fraud" vs. an effective one party state...
Russia is not 'one party state'.

parapauk said:
...and a government staffed by former (?) members of the most notorious secret service on earth...
We in Russia see in at another angle - the most professional, intelligent and efficient secret service. Feel the difference.

parapauk said:
...who also happen to control the only viable element of the economy,...
According to predictions soon Russia will outstrip the UK in economics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7096426.stm

Russia attracts investors despite its image
...
Deutsche Bank's Mr Lissovolik says the economic expansion has been driven largely by non-fuel sectors
...
Telecoms, banking, insurance, foods and some other sectors have been expanding fast as consumer and investment spending has become a significant factor in Russia's economic growth.
parapauk said:
...as well as the broadcast media. Mmmmm...
Rulling elites in the UK and USA (and many other contries) control broadcast media as well. Anyway Euronews in Russian is available across Russia. Each day on the way to my office I use to hear BBC-Russian radio in my car. US funded Radio Freedom is easily avilable as well.

My mother-in-law is 78 and frequently she is unable to sleep at night. So she hear Radio Freedom. Btw, she voted for pro-Putin's United Russia and decided to vote for Putin's puppet Medvedev (it is how American propaganda works).
 
#13
maxi_77 said:
KGB_resident said:
maxi_77 said:
Many would suggest that any country that wished to restrict independant monitoring of it's elections has something to hide, and I would agree with them. No system is perfect and all can benefit from constructive suggestion, ours included.

What have you to hide?
There is nothing to hide I believe. But why does ODIHR refuse to send its monitors if Russian propositions (about numer of observers and the scope) are even better than ones in many other countries? Has Russia right to say: we wish to be treated as the USA and other European countries? This question remains unaswered.

Also, while in many countries (as in the UK) procedural violations is a common place then in Russia it is quite rare thing. So in fact ODIHR fears that it would fail to find any irregularities in the procedure.
My dear chap it is all about perception, the moment you quibble the rest of the world asks what are they trying to hide, if you are trying to score points, you have lost far more than you might ever gain, by acting like that nice Mr Mugabe.
Peter, all these 'observers' from ODIHR come with pre-forged 'reports' and would they stay 1,2,3 or even 8 weeks the result of their 'investigations' would be the same.

So from point of Russia it would be silly to pretend that we don't understand it. As a result Russia demands absolutely the same conditions as for other countries.
 
D

Dom1983

Guest
#14
Russia is not 'one party state'. [/b]your deluded bud, what serious opposition to Putin has not fled the country in fear for their life!

parapauk said:
...and a government staffed by former (?) members of the most notorious secret service on earth...
We in Russia see in at another angle - the most professional, intelligent and efficient secret service. Feel the difference.
im sure thats how the SS saw themselves too. Come on all secret services are dodgy, but not all are poltical tools

parapauk said:
...who also happen to control the only viable element of the economy,...
According to predictions soon Russia will outstrip the UK in economics.
In growth maybe, in reality that doesnt mean a whole lot. we dont have to line up at the end of the road for bread do we! get real alot of Russia survive like a third world country
 
#15
Rulling elites in the UK and USA (and many other contries) control broadcast media as well.
The key word there being elites as opposed to elite. Multiple centre mean that if one media branch were inclined to ignore a story, another would cover it.

Anyway Euronews in Russian is available across Russia. Each day on the way to my office I use to hear BBC-Russian radio in my car. US funded Radio Freedom is easily avilable as well.
The fact that you have to watch/listen to foreign broadcasters isn't a bit worrying for you?

Also interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7230502.stm
 

RP578

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
KGB_resident said:
Peter, all these 'observers' from ODIHR come with pre-forged 'reports' and would they stay 1,2,3 or even 8 weeks the result of their 'investigations' would be the same.
You of course have proof of this.
 
#17
KGB_resident said:
maxi_77 said:
KGB_resident said:
maxi_77 said:
Many would suggest that any country that wished to restrict independant monitoring of it's elections has something to hide, and I would agree with them. No system is perfect and all can benefit from constructive suggestion, ours included.

What have you to hide?
There is nothing to hide I believe. But why does ODIHR refuse to send its monitors if Russian propositions (about numer of observers and the scope) are even better than ones in many other countries? Has Russia right to say: we wish to be treated as the USA and other European countries? This question remains unaswered.

Also, while in many countries (as in the UK) procedural violations is a common place then in Russia it is quite rare thing. So in fact ODIHR fears that it would fail to find any irregularities in the procedure.
My dear chap it is all about perception, the moment you quibble the rest of the world asks what are they trying to hide, if you are trying to score points, you have lost far more than you might ever gain, by acting like that nice Mr Mugabe.
Peter, all these 'observers' from ODIHR come with pre-forged 'reports' and would they stay 1,2,3 or even 8 weeks the result of their 'investigations' would be the same.

So from point of Russia it would be silly to pretend that we don't understand it. As a result Russia demands absolutely the same conditions as for other countries.
Not every one does things the 'Russian' way, the choice at the end of the day is with Russia, either allow them in, openly, or the rest of the world will form it's own opinion based on your actions, rather than observations.
 
#18
parapauk said:
Rulling elites in the UK and USA (and many other contries) control broadcast media as well.
The key word there being elites as opposed to elite. Multiple centre mean that if one media branch were inclined to ignore a story, another would cover it.
You see two puppets that beat each other but there is only one puppeteer. I repeat my example with Japan. Apparently you agree that it is a democracy. But one party is at power here for decades.

parapauk said:
Anyway Euronews in Russian is available across Russia. Each day on the way to my office I use to hear BBC-Russian radio in my car. US funded Radio Freedom is easily avilable as well.
The fact that you have to watch/listen to foreign broadcasters isn't a bit worrying for you?
I have to watch foreign broadcasters? You joke. Any information is available in Russian internet. There is liberal Radio Echo of Moscow. Any less or more signifivcan event is mentioned and commented. I use to read BBC and other mass media to learn how they reflect events, how they use to lie.

From point of view of mr.Wingfield-Hayes Russia is quite near the final collapse. But it is too far from the truth. Many in the West prefer to see Russia weak, dependent, serving as a source of cheap resources. But wishes and reality are different matters.

There are 3 possible ways for Russia:

1. To be pro-US puppet state. This direction is rejected.
2. Movement close to Soviet-style economical and political sistems. 'Comrade' Zyuganov represent this trend and hasn't suffient support.
3. Nationally-oriented capitalism with Russian interests on the first place. The majority support it.

Yes, there is no candidate that represents 1st way. But he(she) would not have any chances anyway.
 
#19
maxi_77 said:
KGB_resident said:
maxi_77 said:
KGB_resident said:
maxi_77 said:
Many would suggest that any country that wished to restrict independant monitoring of it's elections has something to hide, and I would agree with them. No system is perfect and all can benefit from constructive suggestion, ours included.

What have you to hide?
There is nothing to hide I believe. But why does ODIHR refuse to send its monitors if Russian propositions (about numer of observers and the scope) are even better than ones in many other countries? Has Russia right to say: we wish to be treated as the USA and other European countries? This question remains unaswered.

Also, while in many countries (as in the UK) procedural violations is a common place then in Russia it is quite rare thing. So in fact ODIHR fears that it would fail to find any irregularities in the procedure.
My dear chap it is all about perception, the moment you quibble the rest of the world asks what are they trying to hide, if you are trying to score points, you have lost far more than you might ever gain, by acting like that nice Mr Mugabe.
Peter, all these 'observers' from ODIHR come with pre-forged 'reports' and would they stay 1,2,3 or even 8 weeks the result of their 'investigations' would be the same.

So from point of Russia it would be silly to pretend that we don't understand it. As a result Russia demands absolutely the same conditions as for other countries.
Not every one does things the 'Russian' way, the choice at the end of the day is with Russia, either allow them in, openly, or the rest of the world will form it's own opinion based on your actions, rather than observations.
To few in Russia care about it. Those who care are free to form own political party and take part in elections. There were no ODIHR observers in the UK during the last elections. And who cares?
 
#20
I've just been watching Putin making his last speech on TV. Nothing annoys me more than Russian politicians going on about how it's all the west's fault that Russian was weak in the 1990s, and what a wonderful strong country it is now.
Utter crap. Russia is a weak country because there is still no established method for a democratic transfer of power. It's still the same as it was in Tsarist time or in Bolshevik time - the power of one man. Imagine if Putin had died last year - there would have been a huge dogfight for power. As it is, we have two Kremlin clans fighting it out in there now. No-one creates anything in Russia, because they are two terrified it will be stolen tomorrow. Look at Chemezov - on Monday he asked for 500 million to buy part of VSMPO-Avisma, today he wants half of Air Union airline. Has this monkey ever created or improved anything? No, but he's ex-KGB so he thinks its his birthright to rip off the country.
The KGB did their best to make sure nobody created wealth for 70 years, and now all they can do is grab it from others. And make sure no-one else has a chance of participating in running the country.
Maybe in another 70 years, someone here will realise that letting other people have a say is a good thing, not a crisis.
 

Similar threads

Top