Democracy does not mean moral, though you posted this on the day of the Russian election. And though they're obviously rigged, the US one isn't some glorious opportunity for the will of the people to be heard either.
As for your other two issues, the US has had no issue undermining elections for years, and runs a public assassination program in addition to anything that remains secret. There is a comparison, and both sides are awful.
US elections are at least superficially free and fair. Imho leaders that don’t hold fair elections also give up the expectation of other nations keeping out of them.
So while there is certainly back-and-forth here, I can’t see any moral issues with anyone meddling in Russian elections. It’s likely even necessary if the current regime is to be changed (which I think will be harder than in 1990).
The US obviously also meddle with more or less acceptable means in countries that do have free and fair elections but that’s a different topic.
The US's election system has many issues, but Russia's system (at the present moment) is a complete charade.
At least with the US system, the rules and loopholes (as stupid as they are) are transparent, known, and understood ahead of time. There's no funny business behind the curtain.
In Russia, elections are secretly manipulated by the state. The US is a sometimes-dysfunctional democracy, but Russia doesn't have a democracy at all.
Well, the US has orchestrated elections with considerable more manipulation than Russia (allegedly) used here. The US has also overthrown governments that it didn't like. So we can't call it a draw; morally we have to call it a loss for the US. (That is, until you start thinking about things like Russia rolling tanks into Warsaw in 1956 and Prague in 1968...)
Russia doesn't have free or fair elections anyway- how could the US possibly corrupt it any more than Putin cronies personally controlling almost all domestic Russian media?
I'll admit that the US is a more functional democracy, but that's mostly because it doesn't matter who gets in the office. Talk about "fetishism of small differences". Both parties are more alike than different, except in small ways just enough for each to capture its kind of people. Of course "a more functional democracy" whose two major candidates in 2016 are Trump and Hillary, and who had Bush Jr. serving 2 terms is a joke in itself, but still.
Most of the complaints about Russian elections are from organizations working "Radio Free Europe" style -- "soft power" sponsored attacks to delegitimize a country and help install friendly lackeys like that Yeltsin figure in its early days. This has been going for over 2 centuries all around the world, so it's not really news.
Are there are actual issues with Russian internal politics / elections etc? Sure. But not something anybody outside of Russia should even care about. Whereas the caprices and "strategic interests" of other countries can exploit or completely fuck up every country in the whole world.
Manipulating a foreign election, especially to the detriment of that country, is morally wrong. We have a lot of laws in place to prevent this being done. The leaks are irrelevant. The arrogance is disgusting.
To compare US elections to Russian or Syrian elections is both incredibly naive and dangerous. In one country, you have a leading political opponent having stolen classified docs treated with kid gloves; in the other, you have political opponents poisoned and literally blown out of the sky.
So what's exactly your problem with that? Like elections in U.S.A, Britain or almost everywhere else where elections are anonymous is not completely fraud process?! Why aren't you trying to solve your own internal problems instead of crying on "fraud elections in russia"? Yes, it's obivious, but it is not your business at all.
In my country, elections are fair. If you ask people on the street -- they will say they believe in democracy. Which is reasonable since the concept of voting is easy to understand.
Offering free food for in exchange for votes is still a thing though, since voters know that everyone on the ballot is a corrupt sack of shit. They're going to end up equally fucked either way -- might as well pick up some free food along with it.
There is no difference when the end result is destroying people's trust in elections. You are clearly biased.
Maybe you should look into how the US meddles in foreign elections. It is something countries do to each other. Russia has always done that and so have we. There was nothing special about 2016. These complaints about CA are the left's equivalent of when the right says there is mass voter fraud because of one or two minor instances of election fraud.
Right, but in russian elections you can look for indicators of election fraud and find them by the dozen, and in the US you cannot. In russia, all of the party's officials are complicit stooges going along with the narrative that threy totally won by 92%, where as im the US even the VP is acknowledging his loss.
There are no markers or evidence of any kind. Nobody can even come up with plausible stories nevermind facts.
So should we really be making the comparison to two of the most obviously corrupt states on earth? Does that help the conversation or just muddy the waters?
I live in a country that the US has sanctioned in the past for undemocratic election processes. Also, I'm familiar with our voting procedures and have worked on election oversight, data gathering etc.
If we had an election that had a fraction of the irregularities that are surfacing in some of these problematic states, I'm pretty sure we would have been invaded by now. Jokes aside, those states are a similar population size to my country so it's not apples and oranges.
Censorship is also something the US is quick to call out others for.
Wow, when a foreign government tries to influence our elections, you handwave it away, but when American journalists weigh in on politics, suddenly they're being "adversarial".
Think long and hard about what you're saying here. You're dismissing foreign interference, but critisizing domestic political involvement.
The key difference here is that Russia isn't the United States and has no say in our policies, while American journalists are citizens and voters who have a societal duty to participate the democracy. When the former gets involved in an election, we call it "foreign interference", when the latter gets involved we call it "democracy".
So which do you prefer? Foreign manipulation of public will, or democracy?
Your comment reeks of hubris, hatred for Americans, and self-delusion. You question the value of ridding the world of bad-actors. Why? Why would this be a bad thing, if one company ensures it cannot accidentally allow foreign powers to interfere in elections?
You have one ‘source’ that claims, without evidence, that the impact of Russian meddling was minimal. To be so confident of your pretty big claim, with only that source to go on, that’s pretty crazy.
You also make it out like all of the US is actively working on this. Ridiculous. People all around their country are attempting to strengthen their democracy, to find ways to make it better.
That you think this is a bad thing... it makes it obvious how much you hate America. Deny it all you want. And I’m not even an American.
Endorsing a candidate is not "meddling in elections". Anyone trying to sell that line is not on the level.
There certainly have been plenty of instances of the US doing very bad things globally (your second link is very much legit), but I guess the stated goal of spreading democracy is better than whatever straight up authoritarian states like Russia are peddling, even if it can be frustrating when things fail to live up to the ideal.
I think you can certainly argue for less US involvement abroad and still view Russia's actions in a very, very poor light.
As for your other two issues, the US has had no issue undermining elections for years, and runs a public assassination program in addition to anything that remains secret. There is a comparison, and both sides are awful.
reply