Just playing the “devil’s advocate” here, but:
We as Americans tend to hold ourselves to a fairly high standard. We often request to send observers to elections in other countries, as a nation, and are often granted that access. Then why should those nations consider our elections as credible if we are unwilling to grant such requests from other nations or the UN, which we are a major member of? As far as I know when our country is sending in observers our representatives conduct themselves within the laws of the host nation, we should demand no less from observers sent here. If a state has laws saying that elections cannot be monitored it forces the question “Why?”, are those states trying to hide something? Wouldn’t our observers have the same question in the same circumstances while in other countries?
Other nations see THIS election as a contentious one, an election that may have serious consequences to the economy’s of other nations. They see their concerns as valid, the leader of our country makes decisions every day that have significant consequences not just in our own nation but in many others. We are after all the last remaining “super power” and one of the biggest economy’s on the planet, if our elections are questioned wouldn’t it be prudent for an international agency such as the UN to request to send observers?
Anyway, there are many reasons why another country or even the UN might request to send observers. One of which is to see the process we have and how it can be adopted to the needs of other nations.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with UN observers. We have nothing to hide and we tend to get it right when we have elections. We are not perfect (Remember the “hanging chads” crap?), but as a nation we do our best. I’d be happy to show off our election system to those who don’t have one or have one that does not work as well as it could. As a nation we set the example for many other nations, why not be proud of it?
Ron
