These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Indeed, the question is: if some manipulation of the electorate takes place (through a TikTok campaign, for instance), is that enough to justify canceling the result? You say no, and I think you are right. The problem is that given the Russians' behavior--Dughin has recently made declarations that Romania will soon be Russian--and Romania's past with Russia, the pro-European part of the electorate is freaking out. The justification for the Court's decision is that the second round of voting would have coincided with the peak of Russian interference (and Georgescu would have won in an unfair way). On the other hand, it's likely he would have lost, because according to the latest polls the pro-European candidate was ahead. So there are speculations that maybe the judges wanted to favor the PSD candidate who was behind Lasconi. One small correction to your piece: the far-right candidate who was stopped from running was a she, not a he, Diana Sosoaca, who has made very strident declarations against homosexuals (among many other things). She would have never had any chance (she is the opposite of Georgescu's polished manners, a physically unappealing person). For those who are interested in more detailed descriptions about the actors in this tragi-comedy, this is my take: https://altaifland.substack.com/p/tiktok-water-energy-the-romanian
I agree with Alta. There is way more context to the situation in Romania than it may look from the outside. The situation in Romania poses a tough question for all democracies: what do you do when your elections are under attack from foreign influence, and illegality and manipulation, including illegal funding, impacts the result of the elections and you need to have an immediate response? What are the guardrails, are they effective, do we still have any left, or are we just waiting to see what happens, whether Russia gives us the next president? I assert democracies are not fully equipped to deal with such threats, Romania for sure wasn't. We will have to deal with this dilemma in the future. I have been closely familiar with Romanian politics for more than 2 decades, and I have never been more scared for Romania's future than before the Court decision, at the prospect of having a pro-Russian president who would destroy everything my parents and generations have built - Romania as a democracy, a NATO and EU member. It would probably take us years to untangle the explanations for everything that happened and have the full picture. The Constitutional Court's decision, in the timeframe that was left, was the only legal guardrail still in place. No one is happy about it, that we eneded up here, but a lot of people are relieved we still have institutions and rules. As controversial as it may be, the decision averted a dangerous outcome, obtained with foreign intereference, that would have buried Romania's democracy (not to mention its economy) and would have majorly impacted Ukraine, the EU and NATO. I published two analyses on this, one immediately after the first presidential round and the second just before the Court decided to cancel the elections. https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/romania-on-the-brink ; https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/democratic-calamity-in-romania
I don't see any further context presented in your remarks, except that a candidate you don't like won and you'd prefer to annul the election by blaming it on Russia without any evidence - all in the name of "democracy." It all sounds very familiar to me.
I am very grateful to you, Yascha, for this clarification. Because you really have to distinguish between the actual falsification of elections through the incorrect counting of votes cast or other types of manipulation of election results and influencing the opinion of eligible voters in any way whatsoever. Influencing opinion is a common practice of political parties and there have long been all kinds of actors in this field - state and privately sponsored actors from domestic and foreign organisations. But one should actually assume that the voting decision itself is an act of free will on the part of the voter. It may be regrettable that the election decision was made one way or the other, but the sovereign in a democracy is the electorate.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I couldn't disagree more. It's not up to citizens to prove an election is rigged, it is for election officials to prove that it was not rigged.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "Trust us." And I don't. We're not supposed to.
If you dispute a bill from the power company or from auto repair shop, they can't get away with "Trust us." They must document the costs. Nobody but election officials can even try to get away with, "You can't prove we're cheaters, so we must be honest."
The concerted effort by progressives and their mainstream media to sue and silence people for having the audacity of expressing doubts and wanting proof concerning the 2020 election doesn't convince me that it was honest. It convinces me that they are covering up a rigged election.
None of the elections mentioned in the above article can be proved to be dishonest. So, should we therefore assume that they were honest? It's time for Americans to recognize that there is no inherent difference between an American election and a foreign election. If a foreign election can be rigged, so can an American one.
This is a fantastic summary of the history of allegations of "voter fraud" changing election results. Funny that even though everything in your attachment was familiar to me when I read it and watched the video, to see it all in one compact package was very powerful. I hope everyone takes a look at it.
How do you prove a negative? For the last four years in the US the now president elect has made all kinds of claims about rigged elections, yet never presents any evidence.
Thank you for opening comments, and for your article. This is a good lesson and timely for the U.S.
If media reports can be believed, the election in Venezuela was clearly stolen. But recent hot rhetoric in the U.S. has been, at best, counter-productive. We need to have confidence in our elections.
I don't feel the U.S. press is covered in glory. All the "baseless" "without evidence" language, identical language in every story by almost every news outlet, about an election that was lost by just over 40,000 votes in four states, could have been a lot more informative. It didn't inspire confidence. In fact, I hold the "media" largely responsible for the continuing lack of confidence in our election integrity right up to the present day. We need more transparency and honest, thorough coverage of any similar issue in the future. Thank goodness Trump won in a virtual landslide.
I also feel that ballot security should be something both parties support. Why not? The Democrats have resorted to a lot of talk (e.g., Stacy Abrams, "voter suppression") that undermines public confidence.
I see your point, Yascha, but my assumption is that the top court had access to intelligence reports we do not have. After all, it has come to light over the past few days that the far right candidate is closely allied with members of Iron Guard-adoring paramilitary groups in Romania. Maybe that had been flagged by intelligence reports, along with Kremlin electoral influence.
The recent election results in the US prove the ballot box is not a reliable means to protect democracy. It should be straightforward enough to put laws in place that preclude anti-democratic behaviour by any candidate. Adherence to the constitution in all elections needs to be a precondition to eligibility to run for office. Some things should simply be disqualifying - like January 6th. In the world in which we live today it’s too easy for bad actors to manipulate the electorate starting first by making them ignorant, angry and stupid. The constitution must define the acceptable parameters of political disagreement; politics cannot simply be a “free for all” based on free speech. The best ideas cannot rise to the top in the world we live in today without first establishing certain parameters and boundaries. Immigration policy is fair game; threatening to lock up political opponents or pardoning criminals who engaged in anti democratic misconduct should be disqualifying. But plainly voters are incapable of discerning where the line needs to be drawn.
“The constitution must define the acceptable parameters of political disagreement; politics cannot simply be a “free for all” based on free speech.”
Have you ever read the constitution? I’m OK with you vehemently disagreeing with the way the constitution is written today, but saying that a document must adhere to the way you define it seems to indicate a bit of a misunderstanding or perhaps hubris.
These are all good points and I agree with most of them. Indeed, the question is: if some manipulation of the electorate takes place (through a TikTok campaign, for instance), is that enough to justify canceling the result? You say no, and I think you are right. The problem is that given the Russians' behavior--Dughin has recently made declarations that Romania will soon be Russian--and Romania's past with Russia, the pro-European part of the electorate is freaking out. The justification for the Court's decision is that the second round of voting would have coincided with the peak of Russian interference (and Georgescu would have won in an unfair way). On the other hand, it's likely he would have lost, because according to the latest polls the pro-European candidate was ahead. So there are speculations that maybe the judges wanted to favor the PSD candidate who was behind Lasconi. One small correction to your piece: the far-right candidate who was stopped from running was a she, not a he, Diana Sosoaca, who has made very strident declarations against homosexuals (among many other things). She would have never had any chance (she is the opposite of Georgescu's polished manners, a physically unappealing person). For those who are interested in more detailed descriptions about the actors in this tragi-comedy, this is my take: https://altaifland.substack.com/p/tiktok-water-energy-the-romanian
Thanks, Alta — excellent article with much deeper context on Romania! (And I’ll fix the mistake now; appreciate you pointing it out.)
I agree with Alta. There is way more context to the situation in Romania than it may look from the outside. The situation in Romania poses a tough question for all democracies: what do you do when your elections are under attack from foreign influence, and illegality and manipulation, including illegal funding, impacts the result of the elections and you need to have an immediate response? What are the guardrails, are they effective, do we still have any left, or are we just waiting to see what happens, whether Russia gives us the next president? I assert democracies are not fully equipped to deal with such threats, Romania for sure wasn't. We will have to deal with this dilemma in the future. I have been closely familiar with Romanian politics for more than 2 decades, and I have never been more scared for Romania's future than before the Court decision, at the prospect of having a pro-Russian president who would destroy everything my parents and generations have built - Romania as a democracy, a NATO and EU member. It would probably take us years to untangle the explanations for everything that happened and have the full picture. The Constitutional Court's decision, in the timeframe that was left, was the only legal guardrail still in place. No one is happy about it, that we eneded up here, but a lot of people are relieved we still have institutions and rules. As controversial as it may be, the decision averted a dangerous outcome, obtained with foreign intereference, that would have buried Romania's democracy (not to mention its economy) and would have majorly impacted Ukraine, the EU and NATO. I published two analyses on this, one immediately after the first presidential round and the second just before the Court decided to cancel the elections. https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/romania-on-the-brink ; https://iuliahuiu.substack.com/p/democratic-calamity-in-romania
I don't see any further context presented in your remarks, except that a candidate you don't like won and you'd prefer to annul the election by blaming it on Russia without any evidence - all in the name of "democracy." It all sounds very familiar to me.
I am very grateful to you, Yascha, for this clarification. Because you really have to distinguish between the actual falsification of elections through the incorrect counting of votes cast or other types of manipulation of election results and influencing the opinion of eligible voters in any way whatsoever. Influencing opinion is a common practice of political parties and there have long been all kinds of actors in this field - state and privately sponsored actors from domestic and foreign organisations. But one should actually assume that the voting decision itself is an act of free will on the part of the voter. It may be regrettable that the election decision was made one way or the other, but the sovereign in a democracy is the electorate.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I couldn't disagree more. It's not up to citizens to prove an election is rigged, it is for election officials to prove that it was not rigged.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say, "Trust us." And I don't. We're not supposed to.
If you dispute a bill from the power company or from auto repair shop, they can't get away with "Trust us." They must document the costs. Nobody but election officials can even try to get away with, "You can't prove we're cheaters, so we must be honest."
The concerted effort by progressives and their mainstream media to sue and silence people for having the audacity of expressing doubts and wanting proof concerning the 2020 election doesn't convince me that it was honest. It convinces me that they are covering up a rigged election.
None of the elections mentioned in the above article can be proved to be dishonest. So, should we therefore assume that they were honest? It's time for Americans to recognize that there is no inherent difference between an American election and a foreign election. If a foreign election can be rigged, so can an American one.
https://individualistsunite.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-honest-elections?r=z324w
This is a fantastic summary of the history of allegations of "voter fraud" changing election results. Funny that even though everything in your attachment was familiar to me when I read it and watched the video, to see it all in one compact package was very powerful. I hope everyone takes a look at it.
How do you prove a negative? For the last four years in the US the now president elect has made all kinds of claims about rigged elections, yet never presents any evidence.
Thank you for opening comments, and for your article. This is a good lesson and timely for the U.S.
If media reports can be believed, the election in Venezuela was clearly stolen. But recent hot rhetoric in the U.S. has been, at best, counter-productive. We need to have confidence in our elections.
I don't feel the U.S. press is covered in glory. All the "baseless" "without evidence" language, identical language in every story by almost every news outlet, about an election that was lost by just over 40,000 votes in four states, could have been a lot more informative. It didn't inspire confidence. In fact, I hold the "media" largely responsible for the continuing lack of confidence in our election integrity right up to the present day. We need more transparency and honest, thorough coverage of any similar issue in the future. Thank goodness Trump won in a virtual landslide.
I also feel that ballot security should be something both parties support. Why not? The Democrats have resorted to a lot of talk (e.g., Stacy Abrams, "voter suppression") that undermines public confidence.
I see your point, Yascha, but my assumption is that the top court had access to intelligence reports we do not have. After all, it has come to light over the past few days that the far right candidate is closely allied with members of Iron Guard-adoring paramilitary groups in Romania. Maybe that had been flagged by intelligence reports, along with Kremlin electoral influence.
It's time for us to revisit the concept of militant democracy:
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/43728/chapter-abstract/367620407?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Just curious, is the the right wing candidate claiming to be the candidate of free speech, and that TikTok is censoring people?
The recent election results in the US prove the ballot box is not a reliable means to protect democracy. It should be straightforward enough to put laws in place that preclude anti-democratic behaviour by any candidate. Adherence to the constitution in all elections needs to be a precondition to eligibility to run for office. Some things should simply be disqualifying - like January 6th. In the world in which we live today it’s too easy for bad actors to manipulate the electorate starting first by making them ignorant, angry and stupid. The constitution must define the acceptable parameters of political disagreement; politics cannot simply be a “free for all” based on free speech. The best ideas cannot rise to the top in the world we live in today without first establishing certain parameters and boundaries. Immigration policy is fair game; threatening to lock up political opponents or pardoning criminals who engaged in anti democratic misconduct should be disqualifying. But plainly voters are incapable of discerning where the line needs to be drawn.
Definition of an oxymoron:
“the ballot box is not a reliable means to protect democracy”
The only way to defend democracy is to let dictator for life Michael Adam make all decisions going forward
Unfortunately, for a lot of people, “democracy” is defined as voting for the guy or gal that you wanted to win.
“The constitution must define the acceptable parameters of political disagreement; politics cannot simply be a “free for all” based on free speech.”
Have you ever read the constitution? I’m OK with you vehemently disagreeing with the way the constitution is written today, but saying that a document must adhere to the way you define it seems to indicate a bit of a misunderstanding or perhaps hubris.
Well, I guess those who voted for the right-wing candidate will do so the second time. So let's see.