Wouldn't It be Nice, if Nobody Ever Questioned Election Results?

Remember the American election with the hanging chads and other weirdly improbable stories coming out of Florida? When one comic opined that the state of Florida was going for the 'stupidest state in the union' title?

Or the Minnesota election when lawsuits over the results nearly delayed the decision over who won - until the next election?

Well, it could be worse:

"Sri Lanka election loser Sarath Fonseka arrested"
BBC (February 8, 2010)

"The defeated candidate in Sri Lanka's presidential election, Gen Sarath Fonseka, has been arrested at his office in Colombo.

"Gen Fonseka was defeated by incumbent Mahinda Rajapaksa last month by six million votes to four million.

"Gen Fonseka rejected the results and vowed to challenge them in court.

"The initial allegations brought by the government against Gen Fonseka, 59, were put simply as "committing military offences"...."

I'll concede that arresting candidates who threatened to contest the official results is one way to eliminate those pesky legal challenges. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that what seems to be the Sri Lanka model is much better than systems which award the presidency to whoever has the most soldiers in the presidential palace at the moment.

But He's a General! - And Everybody Knows What They're Like!

America is a republic with strong democratic traditions: and I think that form of government works moderately well for us. But I'm not convinced - at all - that this is the only sort of government that can adequately coordinate a nation-state. Or even the sort of entity that America is. I'm not at all convinced that the United States of America is a nation state in the traditional sense of the term. (which is another topic)

I've discussed whether there's a 'best' sort of government before. (Most recently in "Commie Plots, Cholesterol, Frank Burns, Hugo Chavez, and 2012" (November 15, 2009))

I hope that Sarath Fonseka is high-profile enough so that he won't simply disappear: and that he doesn't "commit suicide" while in custody. Perhaps I'm misjudging the bunch that won the election - officially.

Or, perhaps not.

The point is, not all nations are alike. And I think it's reasonable to think that America, where we fuss on talk shows and hire lawyers if we don't like the results of an election, isn't exactly the same as the nations where losers get arrested if they don't gracefully accept the inevitable.

Related posts:

• "Commie Plots, Cholesterol, Frank Burns, Hugo Chavez, and 2012"
  (November 15, 2009)
• "Afghan Election: A Few Observations"
  (August 20, 2009)
• "Afghan Press Says Gag is Unconstitutional: They Could be Right"
  (August 19, 2009)
• "Iran's Election: The West Has been Meddling - Sort of"
  (June 22, 2009)
• "Journalism in the Information Age, Or Nothing Says 'No' Like a Brightly Burning Motorcycle"
  (June 24, 2009)
• "Guinea, Military Rule, and Terrorism: Beware Hasty Judgment"
  (December 29, 2008)
• "Sarah Palin's a Nazi: I Saw it on Television"
  (October 20, 2008)
• "Obama Lawyer: FBI, Republicans, Conspire Against ACORN, Obama and Legitimate Votes"
  (October 17, 2008)
• "Barack Osama?! A Whopper of a Typo, or Some Kind of Plot?"
  (October 10, 2008)

In the news:

• "Sri Lanka election loser Sarath Fonseka arrested"
  BBC (February 8, 2010)