I Am Not Fond Of Some Congressmen Now...

[Guest MikeSC]

US lawmakers ask for poll observers

 

Friday 02 July 2004, 8:17 Makka Time, 5:17 GMT 

 

The appeal was addressed directly to UN chief Kofi Annan

 

Several members of the US House of Representatives have requested the United Nations to send observers to monitor the 2 November US presidential election.

 

The request sent via a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday said US officials wanted to avoid a contentious vote like in 2000, when the outcome was decided by Florida.

 

Recalling the long-drawn-out process in the southern state, nine lawmakers, including four blacks and one Hispanic, asked that the international body "ensure free and fair elections in America", according to a statement issued by Florida representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, who spearheaded the effort.

 

'Electoral nightmare'

 

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election," she said in the letter.

 

"As lawmakers, we must assure the people of America that our nation will not experience the nightmare of the 2000 presidential election"

 

Eddie Bernice Johnson,

Congressman from Florida

 

"This is the first step in making sure that history does not repeat itself," she added, after requesting that the UN "deploy election observers across the United States" to monitor the November 2004 election.

 

The lawmakers said in the letter that in a report released in June 2001, the US Commission on Civil Rights "found that the electoral process in Florida resulted in the denial of the right to vote for countless persons".

 

The bipartisan commission, they stressed, determined "that the "disenfranchisement of Florida's voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of black voters' and in poor counties". Both groups vote predominantly Democratic in US elections.

 

'Problems not fixed'

 

The commission also concluded, the lawmakers said, that "despite promised nationwide reforms (of the voting system) ... adequate steps have not been taken to ensure that a similar situation will not arise in 2004 that arose in 2000".

 

Thirty-six days after the 7 Novembe 2000 presidential election, after several state court interventions and vote recounts in numerous Florida counties, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of Republican George Bush, awarding him all of Florida's 25 electoral votes.

 

The ruling tipped the balance against Democratic contender and then vice president Al Gore, who with 267 electoral votes lost to Bush's 271, only one more than the minimum 270 needed to clinch the presidential election.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E47...32579325373.htm

I'll say it right now --- ANYBODY who votes for the assorted morons and idiots who decided to send this request to the UN should just go jump in the ocean and do the world a favor.

 

I never thought I'd see the day where some Democratic lawmakers, still in a hissy fit over losing in 2000, would try and bring in UN inspectors to fuck up our elections.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

there might be a bit more you can add for the "fuck up" part.

 

Anyways, there's always the US Patriot Act approach to this.. what do you have to hide by not having some observers? In fact, i'm sure that the process here can be inspirational.

 

More than likely, observers (independent or otherwise) won't very welcome. But, they should be around. Heck Mike, they might uncover some Democrat vote fraud. ;)

[Guest MikeSC]

there might be a bit more you can add for the "fuck up" part.

 

Anyways, there's always the US Patriot Act approach to this.. what do you have to hide by not having some observers? In fact, i'm sure that the process here can be inspirational.

 

More than likely, observers (independent or otherwise) won't very welcome. But, they should be around. Heck Mike, they might uncover some Democrat vote fraud. ;)

Rob, this is the Democrats, STILL bitching after 4 years, basically stating that if a Republican wins, it's due to cheating.

 

The Republicans didn't do this after 1960. And I can GUARANTEE that if Gore won in 2000, the Republicans wouldn't STILL be going on and on about this.

 

This is, flat-out, insulting and demeaning the opposition.

 

People claim they want more civiliy in politics? Crap like this isn't a solution.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

This seems like a non-issue to me, because of the unlikelihood of anything actually developing from it, and the little impact it would have on the election itself.

[Guest MikeSC]

This seems like a non-issue to me, because of the unlikelihood of anything actually developing from it, and the little impact it would have on the election itself.

It's, to me, showing a borderline psychotic paranoia about Bush.

 

What kind of person could TRULY believe that the Republicans have a desire to steal elections and piss on US electoral law?

 

Heck, I didn't like Clinton, but don't think he'd go out of his way to try and damage the country to benefit himself (his perjury notwithstanding).

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

So, I'd guess you don't have much concern about touchscreen voting, or procedure in general.

 

As for 1960, I don't think the depth of what happened was really known or reported by anybody. (Not to mention the Republicans were messing around in Southern Illinois.)

 

And another thing about 1960 is that it would have taken alot to give Nixon a victory. As one site describes it.

 

"Scenario - a change of 20,467 votes (0.03% of national total) from Kennedy to Nixon in three states results in a victory for Nixon. Missouri - 4,991 votes (0.26%); Illinois 4,430 votes (0.09%); New Jersey - 11,046 votes (0.40%)."

 

And I can GUARANTEE that if Gore won in 2000, the Republicans wouldn't STILL be going on and on about this.

 

Ha.

 

A Republican House and Senate wouldn't have started investigations and all sorts of hearings into the election. Well, that would be selfless and all.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, I'd guess you don't have much concern about touchscreen voting, or procedure in general.

No, I really don't. There is ZERO evidence of ANY serious problems with the 2000 election. Even the US Commission on Civil Rights' report is contradicted by the FACTS.

As for 1960, I don't think the depth of what happened was really known or reported by anybody. (Not to mention the Republicans were messing around in Southern Illinois.)

 

And another thing about 1960 is that it would have taken alot to give Nixon a victory. As one site describes it.

 

"Scenario - a change of 20,467 votes (0.03% of national total) from Kennedy to Nixon in three states results in a victory for Nixon. Missouri - 4,991 votes (0.26%); Illinois 4,430 votes (0.09%); New Jersey - 11,046 votes (0.40%)."

Nixon was QUITE aware of what happened in Chicago. Yet, he didn't bitch and moan. He accepted it.

 

And how is a change of .03% of the national total "a lot"?

And I can GUARANTEE that if Gore won in 2000, the Republicans wouldn't STILL be going on and on about this.

Ha.

 

A Republican House and Senate wouldn't have started investigations and all sorts of hearings into the election. Well, that would be selfless and all.

They absolutely would not have. For starters, unlike with the Dems, the press would CRUCIFY them for trying.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

This seems like a non-issue to me, because of the unlikelihood of anything actually developing from it, and the little impact it would have on the election itself.

It's, to me, showing a borderline psychotic paranoia about Bush.

 

What kind of person could TRULY believe that the Republicans have a desire to steal elections and piss on US electoral law?

 

Heck, I didn't like Clinton, but don't think he'd go out of his way to try and damage the country to benefit himself (his perjury notwithstanding).

-=Mike

I don't think I could blame anyone in this country for losing faith in this nation's electorial process after the debacle four years ago.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't think I could blame anyone in this country for losing faith in this nation's electorial process after the debacle four years ago.

There WASN'T a debacle. That's the point.

 

It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting.

 

The system WORKED.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

No, I really don't. There is ZERO evidence of ANY serious problems with the 2000 election. Even the US Commission on Civil Rights' report is contradicted by the FACTS.

 

That statement applied for this November.

 

It's probably a bit much to worry about a voting system with no paper trail

 

Nixon was QUITE aware of what happened in Chicago. Yet, he didn't bitch and moan. He accepted it.

 

I'll file that under "Ethics, Richard Nixon and". Also, had Illinois went for Nixon, there wouldn't have been any significant change in the results. Just a 276-244 victory for Kennedy.

 

Then again, the same thing is said about Ashcroft as well. (If you ignore that Ashcroft probably expected a Bush victory and a cabinet post and if you ignore that Talent was closer to beating Holden than Ashcroft was to Carnahan)

 

And how is a change of .03% of the national total "a lot"?

 

20,000 votes would have to change in 3 different states. That's quite a stretch.

 

They absolutely would not have. For starters, unlike with the Dems, the press would CRUCIFY them for trying

 

I guess doing what's 'right' in your POV would be beaten by 'doing what's popular'. The hearings would have all sorts of fun. Such as looking into New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida.

 

It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting.

 

*whistles*

 

I've heard different from the right. I've heard that ballots were uncounted (as part of why Bush won the popular vote). I've heard that homeless people were bribed into voting in Wisconsin. Nice to hear that those rumors are unfounded.

 

Also, I'd assume there'd be more concern with touchscreen voting and all that from the Republicans. That'll be another day, I guess.

 

(edit: with links~!)

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I don't think I could blame anyone in this country for losing faith in this nation's electorial process after the debacle four years ago.

There WASN'T a debacle. That's the point.

 

It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting.

 

The system WORKED.

-=Mike

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

[Justice 0]

And how is a change of .03% of the national total "a lot"?

 

20,000 votes would have to change in 3 different states. That's quite a stretch.

Eh, not as much as you think. Missouri was a battleground state, so that could have went either way, Illnois could have easily changed had Daly not delivered Chicago like he did, and 11,000 in NJ... well, that's not too much of a stretch. Because it's across three states actually makes it closer because you are increasing the voting population that much more.

 

And overall, I'm in agreement with Zsasz's first statement, but I agree with Mike's general sentiment about this: It's time to give up on the 'unfair election' bit. We are not a nation at war or one that has massively fraudlent elections (Despite what some people want you to believe).

 

Robbie, I think your "Patriot Act" is a little whacked: There's a difference between a nation passing something to monitor terrorist threats within it's own nation and an international body overlooking the election of a free unhindered nation. Plus, there's the danger of possibly having international influence play a role in the choosing of our President: What if Bush wins, but the UN 'claims' that Bush didn't win fairly. Is it out of international spite for Bush, or is it the truth? Either way, before the facts are all sorted out a considerable amount of the population might call foul on the UN for trying to intefere in a sacred American institution when it was really doing it's job, or Bush instantly starts off with an illegitmate light even though he may have won fairly. If you really want a debacle, then we should call in the UN. That could make 2000 look like a cakewalk.

 

And it does disappoint me that some of the Democrats really lack that much faith in their own citizenry that they'd call in the international community to oversee our own elections. Not questioning anyone's patriotism or anything (Waits for Nazi comparisons), but do they really not believe that we can have a fair election anymore? If so, then how can they validate their own existance through these 'false elections' that put them into office?

[Justice 0]

I don't think I could blame anyone in this country for losing faith in this nation's electorial process after the debacle four years ago.

There WASN'T a debacle. That's the point.

 

It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting.

 

The system WORKED.

-=Mike

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

And Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts. Bush's vote was more diverse and spread out more evenly, while Gore's vote was largely concentrated in a few high-population areas. If we used the simple population model, all you'd ever have to do would be to campaign in the top 15 population centers. That's really reaching out to everyone, eh?

[Guest MikeSC]

That statement applied for this November.

 

It's probably a bit much to worry about a voting system with no paper trail

A paper trail guarantees a lack of problems?

Nixon was QUITE aware of what happened in Chicago. Yet, he didn't bitch and moan. He accepted it.

I'll file that under "Ethics, Richard Nixon and". Also, had Illinois went for Nixon, there wouldn't have been any significant change in the results. Just a 276-244 victory for Kennedy.

 

Then again, the same thing is said about Ashcroft as well. (If you ignore that Ashcroft probably expected a Bush victory and a cabinet post and if you ignore that Talent was closer to beating Holden than Ashcroft was to Carnahan)

I don't even care about the Carnahan joke (to put it simply, Carnahan couldn't qualify as he didn't pass the qualifications to hold office --- namely, being alive).

And how is a change of .03% of the national total "a lot"?

20,000 votes would have to change in 3 different states. That's quite a stretch.

No, it REALLY isn't. It's 1/3 of one percent of the national average.

They absolutely would not have. For starters, unlike with the Dems, the press would CRUCIFY them for trying

I guess doing what's 'right' in your POV would be beaten by 'doing what's popular'. The hearings would have all sorts of fun. Such as looking into New Mexico, Wisconsin, Iowa and Florida.

The GOP wouldn't have done it because they, unlike the Dems, have learned that bitching about unfairness for years and years is extremely counter-productive. Better to move on and prepare for the next battle.

It was a CLOSE election. There was NO illegalities whatsoever. EVERY ballot was counted. NOBODY was prevented from voting.

*whistles*

 

I've heard different from the right. I've heard that ballots were uncounted (as part of why Bush won the popular vote).

This is the first time I've ever heard of that theory or rumor.

 

Never heard of the second thoery, either.

Also, I'd assume there'd be more concern with touchscreen voting and all that from the Republicans. That'll be another day, I guess.

There hasn't been. There are complaints about the actions of the Democrats in 2000 --- but we're not going to insist on investigations or ask the UN to step in.

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

That's irrelevant, as candidates do not run to win the popular vote. They run to win the electoral college --- which is done to make sure that the machines that have populated big cities would be able to completely screw over national elections by hyper-inflating vote totals in their little fiefdoms.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

That's irrelevant, as candidates do not run to win the popular vote. They run to win the electoral college --- which is done to make sure that the machines that have populated big cities would be able to completely screw over national elections by hyper-inflating vote totals in their little fiefdoms.

-=Mike

Which is why i said the system should be changed. Back when this was a hot topic issue, that was a serious proposal.

 

WHY do we need an electorial college now that every vote can be counted? The system is outdated.

[Guest MikeSC]

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

That's irrelevant, as candidates do not run to win the popular vote. They run to win the electoral college --- which is done to make sure that the machines that have populated big cities would be able to completely screw over national elections by hyper-inflating vote totals in their little fiefdoms.

-=Mike

Which is why i said the system should be changed. Back when this was a hot topic issue, that was a serious proposal.

 

WHY do we need an electorial college now that every vote can be counted? The system is outdated.

Because, as has been pointed out, with a popular election, you only need to campaign in about 15 cities in the country. Small states would have NO say whatsoever in national politics.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

That's irrelevant, as candidates do not run to win the popular vote. They run to win the electoral college --- which is done to make sure that the machines that have populated big cities would be able to completely screw over national elections by hyper-inflating vote totals in their little fiefdoms.

-=Mike

Which is why i said the system should be changed. Back when this was a hot topic issue, that was a serious proposal.

 

WHY do we need an electorial college now that every vote can be counted? The system is outdated.

Without the electoral college or a riding system similar to what we have in Canada, it puts way too much power in the hands of a small amount of area. Candidates can then only campaign in New York & California (or Toronto in Canada) and win the election while ignoring the rest of the country. There needs to be more of an equal voice throughout the entire country. For a democracy to work, all the different demographics need to be heard. In the case of going by the popular vote, you end up with a 'tyranny of the majority' situation.

[Justice 0]

More people voted for the guy who lost than the guy who won.

 

If the system worked, than the system was flawed.

That's irrelevant, as candidates do not run to win the popular vote. They run to win the electoral college --- which is done to make sure that the machines that have populated big cities would be able to completely screw over national elections by hyper-inflating vote totals in their little fiefdoms.

-=Mike

Which is why i said the system should be changed. Back when this was a hot topic issue, that was a serious proposal.

 

WHY do we need an electorial college now that every vote can be counted? The system is outdated.

... I think he's saying that cities still have political machines, Zsasz, and that's partly true. But anyways, the strict population model goes makes it so that one only has to appeal to the cities, which disenfrancises both rural and suburban America. The electoral college forces candidates diversify their campaigns and to try and appeal to all Americans rather than just the top urban population centers.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I stand by the facts (and opinion) that....

 

1.) This is a non-issue

 

2.) Mike KNEW this issue would inspire talk of the 2000 Election, a subject he says he's sick of hearing about, but is more than happy to make it the centerpiece of conversation when someone says they think this is a non-issue.

 

3.) A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

[Guest MikeSC]

I stand by the facts (and opinion) that....

 

1.) This is a non-issue

It's an issue because it shows one party is unwilling to face that their opposition might, in fact, NOT be evil.

2.) Mike KNEW this issue would inspire talk of the 2000 Election, a subject he says he's sick of hearing about, but is more than happy to make it the centerpiece of conversation when someone says they think this is a non-issue.

1) What's WRONG with discussing the 2000 elections?

2) How in the world am I the bad guy in all of this?

3.) A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

Then we haven't had a leader since Bush won in 1988.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

3.) A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

 

Even here where the Liberals have dominated for 11 years, they never do better than 40-44% of the vote.

[Justice 0]

3.) A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

So you are basically delegitmatizing 3/4 of all the world's democratic governments. No more coalition governments, no more multiple party systems... that's like all of Europe right out the window.

 

And if that's true... then how could the UN monitor us when barely any of its nations have majoritarian governments?

[Guest MikeSC]

3.) A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

So you are basically delegitmatizing 3/4 of all the world's democratic governments. No more coalition governments, no more multiple party systems... that's like all of Europe right out the window.

 

And if that's true... then how could the UN monitor us when barely any of its nations have majoritarian governments?

Heck, a nice chuck of the UN is composed of dictatorships.

 

Heck, isn't Annan's Ghana a dictatorship?

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

 

50% of the voting population?

 

50% of the voting population doesn't even vote in most elections. That's a tough standard.

 

Without the electoral college or a riding system similar to what we have in Canada, it puts way too much power in the hands of a small amount of area. Candidates can then only campaign in New York & California (or Toronto in Canada) and win the election while ignoring the rest of the country.

 

isn't the riding system criticized for allowing the Liberal Party to dominate Ontario and win?

 

Robbie, I think your "Patriot Act" is a little whacked

 

It's not about the actual purpose, but the "If you're not doing anything wrong, there's nothing to fear"

 

I'd imagine the controversy would be almost nil if they had asked for just "observers" instead of "UN observers"

 

A paper trail guarantees a lack of problems?

 

Considering it'd be neccessary for a recount.

 

After the 2000 election, the rush for Touchscreens and all that is just hasty at best. Piece of paper. Ballot box.

 

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/8910769.htm - on concerns about touch screen

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../2/104657.shtml - more on that

 

http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?p...06-21-04&cat=PP - "Quarter of voters will use unreliable machines"

 

Because, as has been pointed out, with a popular election, you only need to campaign in about 15 cities in the country. Small states would have NO say whatsoever in national politics.

 

My idea is to use 'popular-vote proportionality' for picking electors. There'd still be an electoral college, but the "winner take all" system would be scrapped.

 

It's a bit hard to explain, but it did produce the results of 267-264-6-1 (Gore/Bush/Nader/other).

 

Although this mean that the third party candidates get a shot at votes in big states. Nader got votes from California (2), Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and Texas.

 

There might be a bit more to explain

 

This is the first time I've ever heard of that theory or rumor.

 

Never heard of the second thoery, either.

 

That's a bit surprising. *shrug*

 

Heck, isn't Annan's Ghana a dictatorship?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana

 

A long series of coups resulted in the suspension of the constitution in 1981 and the banning of political parties. A new constitution, restoring multiparty politics, was approved in 1992.

 

It appears to be more of the "uncompetitive Republic", which is the same as many nations, such as Russia.

 

When it comes to elections, the US is still one of the most competitive in the world. And for all the calls about third parties, I don't think a single European country has three major parties.

[AndrewTS 0]

"I don't think I could blame anyone in this country for losing faith in this nation's electorial process after the debacle four years ago."

 

Yeah...after the best that the parties could come up with was *Bush* and *Gore*, I had lost faith in the process.

 

As for the Electoral College, I think it still is relevant and makes sense. It's best that the candidate with the most support over the country as a whole should win, not with the most support in a few concentrated areas.

Naturally, Hillary and many Democrats want a direct popular election for president. Besides, in most cases, the winning candidate wins both.

 

However, the *electors* are an outdated and unnecessary vestige from the system's origin. We can effectively cut them out without any problem, IMO.

[Red Baron 0]

3.) A candidate who cannot carry 50% of the voting population does not deserve to represent them as their leader.

 

Even here where the Liberals have dominated for 11 years, they never do better than 40-44% of the vote.

Which is sad because the next in line would be the people who didn't vote, then the Conservative government.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

isn't the riding system criticized for allowing the Liberal Party to dominate Ontario and win?

 

No. It would be much worse with proportional representation. As much as I complain about Toronto voters, largely because they are incredibly stupid overall, the Conservatives powerbase in the West is just as large as the Liberal powerbase in Ontario. If you look at the results of this last election, the difference between the 135 seats the Liberals got and the 99 seats the Conservatives got can be found mostly in the inability of the Conservatives to make any kind of an inroads into Quebec or Atlantic Canada. You can't go too far in the other direction either, giving each province/territory one seat.

 

The odd thing about Ontario is that they traditionally vote Conservative in the provincial elections and Liberal in the federal. McGuinty's win was an exception. It was actually the first time since 1943 that the Liberals defeated a sitting Tory government since 1934, in the middle of the Depression. From 1943-1985, the Tories controlled Ontario completely. And they also had a strong majority from 1995-2003 as well.

 

The US has a similar problem. Look at the map from the last election. It is almost entirely red, yet Gore almost won the election even though Bush won twice as many states. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about it unfortunately. There is no perfect system, just one that has fewer problems than the others.

[Justice 0]

My idea is to use 'popular-vote proportionality' for picking electors. There'd still be an electoral college, but the "winner take all" system would be scrapped.

 

It's a bit hard to explain, but it did produce the results of 267-264-6-1 (Gore/Bush/Nader/other).

 

Although this mean that the third party candidates get a shot at votes in big states. Nader got votes from California (2), Massachusetts, New York, Ohio and Texas.

 

There might be a bit more to explain

Problem is, though Robbie, you're still just strictly using the popular vote as your only means of determination (Yeah, that sounds weird, but bear with me). It still falls prey to the domination of the population centers since there is no balancing effect for diversifying the vote; it's 'same system, different t-shirt'. If you want a more proportional electoral college, then do it by congressional districts: They are all mandated to be the same size, and it allows for states to split their electors.

 

And even then, I'll point out that Gore won less than 200 Congressional districts. He still wouldn't have won because he only appealed to the big population centers.

[ISportsFan 0]

The Bush/Gore map shows that Bush wins a ton more states, but most of those states (although size-wise, are larger) are not very populated. So, the area of red and blue really means nothing.

 

But, on the other hand, winning 15 major cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and others should also not be enough to win an election. That would ensure a bad campaign regardless.

 

Honestly, I can't think of a better system than the electoral college. It ensures everyone gets their voice heard and it doesn't concentrate all the power into major cities. Maybe there can be some tweaking to the system, but the system itself is important to make sure less populated areas get represented.

 

Jason

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

As long as there's an Electoral College, it means that Hillary will have a much harder time being Top Bitch of the United States.

 

Oh, and all we would have to do is to sic those cops with the guard dogs that were driving away minorities from voting in Florida in 2000 -- the U.N. people would then be out of the country in the blink of the eye...