Interferring in foreign elections is wrong!


Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 13, 2016
202
2,847
I love how they stopped at 200 to avoid listing the US involvement in Mid East elections, the brexit vote, etc.
Yeah, I heard elsewhere it's closer to 80 countries but I couldn't find a snazzy info graphic for that figure. Or maybe some of that 80 was repeats in the same countries.
[doublepost=1492869699][/doublepost]I'm also willing to bet those with the same awareness as those who think the ACA and Obamacare are 2 different things think Russia is still a communist country when they are in fact just a more corrupt and strong armed version of our government. So it would be like they re attempting to export the US to the US.
 
Last edited:

bbrks

macrumors 65816
Dec 17, 2013
1,446
768
Well US boys and girls, just maybe you should finally stop acting as a world police and mess up everything and simply start taking care of you own backyard bevore it's to late.....
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,598
30,787
The Far Horizon
UK and Russia too?
Russia in the mid 1990s: Actually, it was during the Presidential election of 1996, when, according to opinion polls, it appeared that Boris Yeltsin might lose the election, an unwelcome outcome to the west. As an example of interference, it was quite notorious at the time.

Needless to say, this has led - subsequently - to some ill-feeling in that country (not entirely unjustified) ever since, along with a large dose of cynicism at the perceived double-standards when the US deigns to lecture Russia on its democratic short-comings in electoral matters.

Now, the UK........must do some further research.......
 
Last edited:

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,001
Well US boys and girls, just maybe you should finally stop acting as a world police and mess up everything and simply start taking care of you own backyard bevore it's to late.....
When was the last time the police were used to overthrow/interfere with sovereign nation's elections? It's time to put this "world police" ******** talking point to bed.

The term is empire people, empire.
[doublepost=1493034669][/doublepost]
I'd be much more interested in only the elections interfered with since 2000.
First, why 2000?

Second, there's a handful including Ukraine ("Yatz is the guy") since 2000.

Here's the thing. Americans/Western powers may think "well that was 20 years ago" so it's irrelevant to today....people have memories. The USA discredits itself in the eyes of everyone with a historical memory span longer than a gnat....except in the eyes of Americans. Fancy that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
Unless we do it, the heavyweight champions of election interference.

I would be interested in what the source considers to be "meddling." Clearly the U.S. has engaged in a vast array of activities over these decades. But an infographic without any further context is poor evidence.
 

Scepticalscribe

macrumors Sandy Bridge
Jul 29, 2008
45,598
30,787
The Far Horizon
I would be interested in what the source considers to be "meddling." Clearly the U.S. has engaged in a vast array of activities over these decades. But an infographic without any further context is poor evidence.
I suspect that the scope, range, extent, form - and, for that matter, the very definition - of the "meddling" in question varied from country to country, and, indeed, from era to era over the period in question (and since then).

Such "meddling" would be a lot more subtle - if it occurs - in western Europe, than the form it might have taken in the eastern half of the continent. And again, this, in turn, would probably have been discretion personified when contrasted with some of what occurred elsewhere - in less, perhaps, sophisticated, or, certainly less powerful, parts of the globe.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,001
I would be interested in what the source considers to be "meddling." Clearly the U.S. has engaged in a vast array of activities over these decades. But an infographic without any further context is poor evidence.
https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/60/2/189/1750842/When-the-Great-Power-Gets-a-Vote-The-Effects-of

This is the author's study on the topic, from Carnegie Mellon. His website (http://www.dovhlevin.com/datasets) promises making the dataset available soon, but the study itself is accessible if you'd like to read up on the specifics. Note that the study is not solely about America (it's just the numbers weigh heavily on the US being the number one meddler around the world) so we can jump ahead of the "He just hates Amurica" comments soon to follow by the regulars here....
[doublepost=1493043025][/doublepost]
I suspect that the scope, range, extent, form - and, for that matter, the very definition - of the "meddling" in question varied from country to country, and, indeed, from era to era over the period in question (and since then).

Such "meddling" would be a lot more subtle - if it occurs - in western Europe, than the form it might have taken in the eastern half of the continent. And again, this, in turn, would probably have been discretion personified when contrasted with some of what occurred elsewhere - in less, perhaps, sophisticated, or, certainly less powerful, parts of the globe.
He's got a fully published paper on the topic, which defines the terms in context of the study. So as you know, the definition from country to country are moot.
[doublepost=1493043198][/doublepost]
I love how they stopped at 200 to avoid listing the US involvement in Mid East elections, the brexit vote, etc.
I think they stopped at 2000 for the sake of having verifiable datasets to analyze. The infographic is merely formed from a subset of the information in the study given that the study is NOT "how many governments has the USA ****ed with" but an analysis of election meddling worldwide.
 

ibookg409

Suspended
Apr 20, 2016
612
7,356
Portsmouth, NH
I think they stopped at 2000 for the sake of having verifiable datasets to analyze. The infographic is merely formed from a subset of the information in the study given that the study is NOT "how many governments has the USA ****ed with" but an analysis of election meddling worldwide.
The way that "election interference" needs to be more clearly defined as well. I don't think what Russia is accused of doing in the 2016 election counts as election interference.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,001
The way that "election interference" needs to be more clearly defined as well. I don't think what Russia is accused of doing in the 2016 election counts as election interference.
Then go to the "terms" section of the study. I don't know what to tell you other than an infographic can be railed against all you want, but it's based on the published academic paper so if you have an issue with an open ended term go and look up what it means in context within the paper.

Also, I agree with you on Russia. The notion that (allegedly) leaking emails is somehow election interference is the height of stupidity.
 

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/60/2/189/1750842/When-the-Great-Power-Gets-a-Vote-The-Effects-of

This is the author's study on the topic, from Carnegie Mellon. His website (http://www.dovhlevin.com/datasets) promises making the dataset available soon, but the study itself is accessible if you'd like to read up on the specifics. Note that the study is not solely about America (it's just the numbers weigh heavily on the US being the number one meddler around the world) so we can jump ahead of the "He just hates Amurica" comments soon to follow by the regulars here....
I'll be sure to check it out when I have some more time.

But just on principle, I'm not a fan of the logic, "America meddled in elections, so we can't complain when someone meddles in ours." Ideally, no one should meddle in another country's election—with exceptions for promoting the freedom to vote or facilitating an open and fair process.