Postponed Elections?


PDA






Zrex
July 11, 2004, 04:08 PM
Hello everyone - I have been reading here for a while, but this is my first post.

Does anyone find this story troubling?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040711/ts_nm/politics_election_terror_dc_2

If you enjoyed reading about "Postponed Elections?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TamThompson
July 11, 2004, 04:25 PM
Yes.

My personal opinion, which I am entitled to have and to espouse, is that we are being set up and steered towards a martial-law police state.

An incumbent has a much easier task than a challenger: the challenger has to get in, but the incumbent just has to avoid being removed.

Even if the incumbent is behind in the polls, he/she can avoid losing an election--and thus stay in power--if the election is not held or postponed.

Infowars.com, prisonplanet.com, fearorlove.com, and the cable show The Simple Truth.

Sleeping Dog
July 11, 2004, 04:27 PM
No, not troubling at all.

I'd expect Homeland Security to plan for all kinds of hypothetical situations, just like the Pentagon does. If they draw on election commisions for expertise, fine.

The 2000 election wasn't decided on election day, if I remember right. Something about legal maneuvering in Florida. That delayed the thing. Somehow the country survived, according to all but Michael Moore.

Plus, each state holds individual elections to elect the electors. Is Al Queda going to delay them all?

Regards.

Zrex
July 11, 2004, 04:33 PM
I had mixed feelings on this which is why I posted.

Half of me understands that you should prepare yourself for as many contingencies as possible - (don't forget the 7 P's - Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance). The other half of me sees some sort of slippery slope where congress passes a law allowing postponing elections in an "emergency". But, who defines "emergency"?

Even my wife who thinks I am a little nutty when it comes to my distrust of the "gummint" did not like the sounds of suspending elections.

R.H. Lee
July 11, 2004, 04:41 PM
Well, then it's governments responsiblity to prevent an "attack". I paid my taxes and I expect them to find and kill terrorists. If they can't do that, then I want my $$ back. It is not my problem, but I can point them in the right direction-terrorists will most likely be from the middle east. That should narrow down the search some. If NY, or LA or SF gets hit and they are unable to vote, oh well, too bad. The election goes forward or we just live in a dictatorship.

Hack
July 11, 2004, 04:46 PM
Zrex,

Welcome.
This is a sore subject for me.
I don't believe Al-Qida is stupid enough to attack here prior to our elections because they know we would rally around the president and kerry would then have no chance.
That's the one thing terrorists don't want.
I wouldn't worry about any attack here until at least after the election.

Hkmp5sd
July 11, 2004, 04:54 PM
Anything from knocking out the power grid in a few major cities or a pipe bomb or drive-by shooting at several polling places would be enough to prevent large numbers of people from voting on election day. Depending on the demographics of the disruptions, the terrorists could get their candidate elected. Any bets on which candidate the terrorists want to win?

Do we disregard those citizens that are prevented from voting on election day or do we reschedule the election for later? The only other option I see is to have everyone in the US vote by absentee ballot.

dave3006
July 11, 2004, 05:07 PM
You have to understand that Osama WANTS GWB to be President. GWB will continue to poor money into and men into the rat hole called the middle east thereby recruiting more terrorists and further bankrupting the USA.

America will implode financially just like the Soviets. Checkmate Osama.

El Tejon
July 11, 2004, 05:39 PM
Hack, history shows that a terrorist learns from the past and repeat success, if an attack in Spain worked immediately prior to an election and removed a government allied to the US, then they will do it here on the hope that Kerry will disengage from the Middle East and give The Base some breathing room to regroup and strike really big here. I would say that an attack on New York City or D.C. or outside chance of Miami (secondary targets--D.C. and Miami) is highly probable. Timed like Madrid, that's what, late October?

dave, well, the unwise expenditure of resources is always a concern in war. However, to use a historical analogy, did the CSA want Lincoln to win the '64 election so he could continue to pour blood and gold into defeating the traitors or would they root for someone who was understanding of their position and wanted to "negotiate" with the CSA? Or, to use a more ironic example, did not the proto-Taliban want the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan so they could recover and fight their allies?

The Base knows that the only way the West can win is by taking the fight to them and Bush, despite his toleration of Saudi Arabia, is putting the hurt on The Base in the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

Kerry, because of his own and his party's political priorities, will not be as aggressive. Has Kerry not said that he favors returning, or at least looking, to return to the Clinton Administration's policy of treating terrorism as a criminal prosecution?

Waitone
July 11, 2004, 06:02 PM
Loosen up on the tinfoil, people. Any American citizen of reasonable mind figures it inevitable AQ will try to repeat Madrid. Second, AQ while is sophisticated in execution of its attacks, it has demonstrated a tin ear as to what Americans think is important. Like virtually every other totalitarian of the 20th century, AQ is of the opinion we are soft, mushy, lack resolve, exude cowardice, can not or will not defend ourselves and will run at the sight of our blood. Every last one was wrong.

AQ will hit us and I think is will be associated with elections whether it be the party conventions or the actual election. Anyone of reasonable mind will say, "Hey, it's gonna happen. Now what will be do if it becomes advisable to postpone an election?" Postpone it not because of tinfoil obstructions of the temporal lobe, but postponement because it is a reasonable thing to do.

I am no big fan of the Incumbent Party's love affair with statism. At the same time we face Florida Part Deux on Steroids if we don't plan and take reasonable measures. I expect my elected representatives to think and act is a reasonable manner. Failure to plan for disrupted elections in today's world constitutes cause for dismissal of said elected representatives.

jdkelly
July 11, 2004, 06:46 PM
I don't know, but I think that by killing hundreds of Americans before the elections, terrorists would bond much of America, and give Bush a platform to be "Presidential" helping Bush, while relegating Kerry and his message(should he get one to replace "I was in Vietnam") to the side lines. I don't feel most of America thinks the Democrats could wage any type of war.

But by killing few Americans while disrupting our electric power, natural gas, gasoline, and water supplies to make us uncomfortable, would work to the Democrats favor. I think many Americans feel that the Democrats could work a deal and to appease the terrorists to relieve our discomfort.



Respectfully,

jdkelly

El Tejon
July 11, 2004, 06:49 PM
Wait, imagine if no contingency plans were drawn up.:D Heck, don't we have plans to invade Canada?

If no plans were made, Mikey Moore would make another movies about this failure to be prepared.:D

TarpleyG
July 11, 2004, 06:53 PM
Maybe they should just hold the elections a day early and not tell anyone. Kinda like the handover of the Iraqi government. That'll teach 'em.

Greg

Waitone
July 11, 2004, 07:03 PM
Canada as a lifeboat.

Hmmmmmmm. <taps his chin>

Lemme noodle that one around and I'll get back to ya!

Art Eatman
July 11, 2004, 08:15 PM
As usual, the devil would be in the details: An open-ended "permiso" for the President to delay elections? I don't think so. A specific law speaking only to terrorist attacks, defined as a grave national emergency, would then be something which could be brought before SCOTUS if need be.

Art

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
July 11, 2004, 09:28 PM
I would say that an attack on New York City or D.C. or outside chance of Miami (secondary targets--D.C. and Miami) is highly probable. Timed like Madrid, that's what, late October


My guess would be 4-5 suicide bombers, or a suicide gas attack in the crowded, hard to evac Pentagon City Metro stop the Thursday or Firday afternoon before the Labor day weekend.

Advantages to Al-Queda include the facts that it hits the Pentagon again, hit the US close to the election, embarasses the US by hitting the US military close to home base again, etc.

Hack
July 11, 2004, 09:45 PM
Hack, history shows that a terrorist learns from the past and repeat success, if an attack in Spain worked immediately prior to an election and removed a government allied to the US, then they will do it here on the hope that Kerry will disengage from the Middle East and give The Base some breathing room to regroup and strike really big here. I would say that an attack on New York City or D.C. or outside chance of Miami (secondary targets--D.C. and Miami) is highly probable. Timed like Madrid, that's what, late October?

Nah.
The fact there's a difference between Spain and us is not lost on those cunning terrorist dogs.
They are not stupid and able to learn only from the past.
These are educated, war hardened fanatics used to intrigue.
Spain would certainly have remained right. Terrorists had nothing to lose there and wound up winning big. Spain went left and terrorism won.
They know of the real good chance that we may naturally vote into office the john/john show. They know a Democrat win would deliver most, if not all their ends, mid-east and elsewere, to them on a platter.
Why would they rock the boat when not rocking may get 'em kerry?
A hit after a Bush election would probably have more psychological impact anyway.
We'll then be in the throes of quintuple ballot counting and whatever other democrap and worn out from worrying all summer over a mythical impending hit somewhere in America.
Terrorists are enjoying seeing this as to them it's all weakness.
They're going to do it I have no doubt but in their own time after they've gotten the most bang for the buck.

History shows me that Americans band together under the Red, White & Blue when threatened.
I don't know how old you are so I'll use 9/11.
After that there wasn't a day gone by for many months you didn't hear everybody talking about gettin' em. Sweet little old ladies up here in yankeeville talkin' about whackin' em.
And everybody stood behind Dubya.
So much so Bush got lotsa democrabs to go along with lotsa stuff they'd never otherwise have agreed to.
Democrats had to. The PO'd people would've lynched 'em.
Who would win now after a pre election strike?
Tried and true President Bush or lurch?
That scenario is not the aim of a terrorist or a democrat.

Point is I think the Admin is pushing a hypothetical a little too much as gospel in an attempt to garner presidential support.
They know they're scarin' the sheep.

spartacus2002
July 11, 2004, 10:20 PM
Here's what I don't get: so what if AQ strikes on Election Day? Unless they are hitting a significant amount of individual polling sites, people are STILL able to cast their votes. And each polling site that is hit (hypothetically) could just cast their votes the next day.

No need to delay the entire voting day for everyone.

Is there something I'm missing?

Now, I'm not one to reach for the tinfoil, but I do not like the idea of giving an administrative agency of unelected bureaucrats the ability to stop/waive/delay elections. Who will have the power? The FEC? The President? Fahzerland Sekurity?

How many times have we heard the news that OMIGOD, we're ELEVATING THE THREAT LEVEL! Buy your duct tape and plastic! Watch out for floating bags of explosives in harbors! I am reminded of a quote by H.L. Mencken: The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I'm just sick of constantly being poked and prodded and being reminded "Be afraid....Be very afraid..." If .gov REALLY cared, then instead of saying "you and your family will never be safe again after 9/11," .gov would be saying "National CCW Legislation! Go buy a gun! We're repealing the AWB and NFA! Don't be a coward, be a badass American ready to defend your family! Oh, and we're doing something about that Mexican border, too."

JPL
July 11, 2004, 10:54 PM
Legally I don't see how they can do it.

It will be interesting to see what Justice comes up with.

Waitone
July 11, 2004, 11:13 PM
Is there something I'm missing? Yep. You are missing the effect a hyper aggressive media attempting to feed a 24 hour news cycle. One car bomb in a media center like NY or DC or Chicago or LA and the coverage will drive people away from the polls.

I am convinced the media in this country will not be able to contain itself when the next "major" terror hit occurs.

Part of the problem with 2000 election was our friends of the media broadcasting their projections before polls had closed. People heard the reports, thought it was "official" and walked out of the poll before voting and before the polls closed. Look for that same behavior at the next terror event in the US.

Billll
July 11, 2004, 11:43 PM
The first time I heard that the incumbant was going to cancel the elections was in the Nixon administration, from some hippies who were convinced he was personally listening in on their phone conversations. I've heard it about every single administration since. No exceptions.

November is tinfoil hat month. Wear yours to the polls!

jimpeel
July 12, 2004, 12:55 AM
There was once a political cartoon in the Orange County (CA) Register at the time that South Africa was about to have their first national elections. The cartoon had two panels.

The left hand panel depicted a bombed out car with dead bodies lieing around it. The caption was "What it takes to keep a South African from voting."

The right hand panel depicted an outstretched arm protruding from a doorway, palm up. The palm was being hit by a single drop of rain. The caption was "What it takes to keep an American from voting."

If this had been proposed 100, or even 50, years ago there would have been a march on Washington by armed Americans.

Today, they will be able to get away with this.

Everything I had heretofore attributed to the aspirations of the Democrats has now come to pass with the Republicans. The abrogations of rights I had attributed to the aspirations of the Democrats has now come to pass with the Republicans.

I am very disturbed by this.

AMERICANS AREN'T COWARDS!!!

jimpeel
July 12, 2004, 01:03 AM
The thing the other tin hat crowd lacked for credibility was an overt act upon which to base this action. We now have an overt act upon which to base this action and I don't like the smell of this at all.

While it is true that a terrorist act, ala Madrid, will clearly be a vote for Kerry; I abhor the thought that the administration would be able to stop our elections under ANY pretense.

A terrorist incident in Des Moines should have no bearing whatsoever on the election in any other city in America -- PERIOD!

The ONLY thing that should stop the election is a terrorist event at a particular polling place and then ONLY for that district. All other polling places should remain open and the election should continue as if nothing occurred at all.

Michigander
July 12, 2004, 01:53 AM
July 11, 2004 From Newsweek:
...sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place.

December 13, 2000 From John Titor (http://www.johntitor.com) :
Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election.

(emphasis added to both quotes.)

w4rma
July 12, 2004, 08:46 AM
Talks stem from recent fears of terror attack timed to vote
Sunday, July 11, 2004 Posted: 10:42 PM EDT (0242 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, said spokesman Brian Roehrkasse, confirming a report in this week's editions of Newsweek magazine.

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

Here we go. They're floating this trial balloon to test how the public would take it.

rick_reno
July 12, 2004, 08:54 AM
King George emerges from the closet. Hail to the king.

Ed
July 12, 2004, 09:00 AM
I'm for it just because I saw Diane this morning on TV say she wasn't.

John Hicks
July 12, 2004, 09:06 AM
From what I read (and heard on radio news), it sounds more like they only want to move the election if there's an attack. I have no problem with that.

If they try to move it to prevent an attack, well then the conspiracy theorists and "disenfranchised" confused voters will have plenty to gripe about.

Actually moving it last minute (if there was an attack planned) is the perfect strategy to avoiding such an attack. Sorta like changing a motorcade route to avoid an ambush. However, the logistics, legality, and stupidity of most Americans would make that impossible to do.

jh

flatrock
July 12, 2004, 09:07 AM
THey wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't look into the possiblitiy of a terrorist attack on election day, and how it might effect the elections. A lot of people could possibly be unable to vote, which should be a huge concern for the government. If that happens, they better be prepared for how to deal with it, and postponing the election a short time seems like an option worth looking into.

Of course there will be people who try and make this into more than it is.

w4rma
July 12, 2004, 09:10 AM
they only want to move the election if there's an attack. I have no problem with that.Sleep. Go back to sleep all you sheep. Don't worry, the firm hand of fascism will protect you from "them". We're only postponing the elections (for the first time ever in the United States) for a little while. Oh now there are riots over postponing the election. I guess we'll have to postpone it again or maybe it would be best to declare martial law and suspend the whole Constitution for just a little while... Go back to sleep willing sheep.

mhdishere
July 12, 2004, 09:12 AM
The radio this morning was doing "man in the street" interviews about this. The question was "The government is considering postponing the election because of the terrorist threat, how do you feel about that". That's quite a different thing from "The government is making contingency plans to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack that disrupts the election". The second one seems more accurate as far as what the government is actually doing, and seems reasonable. It would be irresponsible for the government NOT to look into such plans, because a major 9/11 type attack on Election Day would certainly disrupt the whole process.

halvey
July 12, 2004, 09:18 AM
I say we move forward with elections no matter what.

If we don't, they kinda won...

mtonetwo
July 12, 2004, 09:28 AM
Kinda takes the wind out of the old sails, AQ finding out their long planned attack on election day won't do diddly.

Art Eatman
July 12, 2004, 09:58 AM
The purpose of a terrorist act is to create fear, right? Why does anybody think a polling place would necessarily be a prime target? If people think that travel to a polling place is hazardous or extremely difficult, they might well stay home and not vote. The terrorist acts could be in various places around the country, of course, with the liklihood of major cities being the target areas. If people in unaffected areas keep on voting that day, the election results are not proper.

The idea of the delay, seems to me, is to promote the ability for all who wish to vote to do so.

Again, any power to delay an election should be strictly controlled in the necessary legislation, with reasons and time limits spoken to. E.g., a delay of five or ten days at most, with a repetition of the delay only via approval of the Congress...

Art

JPL
July 12, 2004, 10:02 AM
Of course, everyone does realize that if the elections are held November 2, and there are terrorists incidents, there will be accusations that they were perpetrated by the Bush camp to keep old people and blacks from voting?

CannibalCrowley
July 12, 2004, 10:35 AM
IMHO the terrorists will have scored a victory if they can force us to move the election. What message would we be sending if we allowed the terrorists to move the date of our election? The date should not be moved in any event! Furthermore, if we move it once, what's to stop them from initiating an attack on the next date?

JPL
July 12, 2004, 10:52 AM
Just took a spin through the Constitution, and it's up to Congress to set the date on which the election takes place.

It looks like it could be done Constitutionally but ONLY if Congress agrees to it via legislation.

FPrice
July 12, 2004, 10:54 AM
"Sleep. Go back to sleep all you sheep."

Kinda makes you mad when other people don't buy into your tinfoil conspiracy theories, doesn't it? You have to insult them to make up for your own personal problems.

Reminds me of the fairy tale where the animal (a goose if I recall correctly) is hit on the head by some small particle and is convinced that the sky is falling. No one believed the goose either, and it turned out that the sky WASN'T falling.

Hope I didn't spoil the ending for you.

ProGlock
July 12, 2004, 11:02 AM
Take a step back for a minute everyone and look at the situation objectively.

Our federal government is already caving in to the forces of terrorists. A contingency plan to move it to another day just in case? Give me a break.

In order to accomplish that, you must publish the new date of the election to the public. The terrorists can obtain this information easily....because it's public!

We should press on with our scheduled elections and give a big middle finger to any who would try to kill innocent people. If our nation weren't already so pussified like it is, at least 50% of everyone at the polls would be armed and any suspicious looking person would be held at gunpoint by armed citizens until John Law came over to see what the guy was up to.

FPrice
July 12, 2004, 11:12 AM
"Our federal government is already caving in to the forces of terrorists. A contingency plan to move it to another day just in case? Give me a break."

I think you misunderstand the purpose of a contingency plan, or even the simple exercise of considering the effect of an outside occurence on a major event.

From what has been published this is not a plan to move Election Day because of the threat of a terrorist attack. If that was the case, terrorists could simply move their planned attack. Rather, it appears to be some public discussion of how to respond if an attack happens.

Of course, this type of exercise has it's own problems. If you talk about it publically you are accused of trying to take over the process or cave in. If you talk about it privately you are accused of plotting in secrecy to take over the government.

Spin. It's what's happening today, dude.

ojibweindian
July 12, 2004, 11:27 AM
Psychotropic medications are good only in the thereaputic range prescribed by your psychiatrist.

Too much, and...

DonP
July 12, 2004, 11:34 AM
Nice premise set-up and absolutely worthy of the typical level of reasoning and fair and balanced discourse displayed routinely on the DU.

Option 1:

The "administration" doesn't plan for an attack and people in major metro areas (most likely high concetration targets and most Democrat controlled, think Washington, Chicago etc.) and the people don't get to vote on election day.

Some bridges blow up or a couple of polling places are taken out by truck bombs etc., then everyone on the left jumps up and starts screaming that they are being denied their franchise by an evil, facist administration that didn't adequately plan for this.

Option 1 NY TIme headline reads:

"Bush forbids plans for protecting polling places, homeless and minorities hardest hit"


Option 2:

They do plan for every possible contingency of the election being disrupted in some way and make arrangements to allow people to cast their vote, even belatedly under any circumstances.

Option 2 NY Time headline reads:

"Bush desparate to stay to power, tried to cancel elections"


I want them to have implementable contingency plans for every possible, although improbable, eventuality. That's what we pay those pinheads for.

If they really wanted to postpone/cancel the election to stay in power do you really think they would open discussions on it now? Trial baloon my foot, they would shut their mouth and just do it.

Or are you of the MIHOP or LIHOP persuasion and everything that has happened since 2000 is all part of the secret Neocon plot?

My own personal point of view, if they do try an attack of any kind, it will provide the largest US voter turnout in history and give them the opposite of the results they were hoping for.

It doesn't pay to tick off the American people or try to control us. You want to see sheep, go to Spain or France, they have plenty in the fields and the halls of government.

jojosdad
July 12, 2004, 11:35 AM
I agree with FPrice.
Of course, this type of exercise has it's own problems. If you talk about it publically you are accused of trying to take over the process or cave in. If you talk about it privately you are accused of plotting in secrecy to take over the government.
Let's wait and see what ACTUALLY happens before we get our panties in a bunch.
BTW ojibweindian had some really good advice IMHO.

WT
July 12, 2004, 11:46 AM
This reminds me of the internet chatter that Bill Clinton was going to suspend the Constitution because of Y2K problems.

In order to influence the electorate, the terrorists will have to strike before election day.

pittspilot
July 12, 2004, 11:48 AM
The Current Liberal talking points about any issue regarding planning for a major terrorist event

Option 1: How could you not prepare? Are you an idiot? Surely it was obvious, and I expect the government to prepare for every contigency, no matter how wacked out it is.

Option 2: What is this plan? Is this meant to take over the country, you facist? This is so unlikely and improbable that you cannot possibly believe it could happen and thus must be a nefarious scheme dreamed up by the Bush/Cheney Zionist cabal.

Note: Use whichever option makes the administration look bad. Do not worry about internal inconsistency. For instance, if someone asks you how you can blame the administration for not planning for every contigency on 9/11 and then turn around and blame them for planning for every contingency for the election, call them sheep. Remember we are not for rational debate, just getting Bush ejected.

Dangit, I see DonP and I had the exact same thought. Must be the cities we live in ;)

ctdonath
July 12, 2004, 12:08 PM
Why should elections be moved if roughly 0.001% of voters are affected?

If someone's really concerned, provide an electrical generator for each voting booth. Better yet, encourage people to use absentee ballots (Oregon has gone exclusively to vote-by-mail - nothing affects voting day there).

Other than a few at "ground zero" of a terrorist attack - and I'm not being heartless here - nobody is hindered from voting. 9/11 was about as bad as such attacks get, and that actually impacted about 0.001% of voters.

The vote should not be delayed - period.
Tallying the vote might take a bit longer than usual ... comparable to time the USA took to count votes for about 150 years (and nobody seriously complained).

Worried about terrorists affecting your vote? Submit it absentee today.

Gordon Fink
July 12, 2004, 12:46 PM
All I’ll say is this, but I’ll post it to both known threads on this topic. If the G. W. Bush administration suspends or cancels the election or the transfer of power (in the event of a Bush defeat), then it will be in gross breach of the Constitution.

If terrorist action does somehow disrupt voting on Election Day, special elections can always be held for the voters in any affected precincts. In any case, the President need not look for ways to “delay” the elections.

~G. Fink

Gordon Fink
July 12, 2004, 12:49 PM
Threads have been merged. I’ve deleted my duplicate remarks.

~G. Fink

Preacherman
July 12, 2004, 01:00 PM
Duplicate threads merged.

R.H. Lee
July 12, 2004, 01:08 PM
Actually moving it last minute (if there was an attack planned) is the perfect strategy to avoiding such an attack

That won't work. The hysterical screaming and crying from the 'disenfranchised minorities' would NEVER end. There would be unending accusations of 'racism' from the world's premier race baiters on the left.

fix
July 12, 2004, 01:23 PM
I'm opposed to postponing the elections on principle, but I don't see any problem with having the discussion and planning ahead. Tinfoil hatter theories aside, exactly what would we do if we had simultaneous massive 9/11 style attacks in multiple locations the night of November 1st? That's a tough question that's worthy of open debate if you ask me. Hypothetical:

Nuke in Manhattan. US Capitol destroyed. Supreme Court Justices and several Congresscritters assasinated. Truck bomb at Hartsfield Airport in Atlanta. Chemical attack in LA. Nuke in Dallas/Fort Worth. Takeover of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Poisoned water supply in St. Louis. All on the same day. November 1st. Now what?

Hkmp5sd
July 12, 2004, 01:43 PM
Whether or not they actually plan to move the election, it is a good idea to have some prior procedure in place to handle it. If they ignore the issue and there is some terrorist action on election day, we're back to lawsuits, judges and SCOTUS making the choices.

An alternative would be to have the election cover a 72 hour period where the voter can go anytime during that time frame. If something happens, they can either clean it up and re-open the poll or move the poll to an alternate location and the voter can still participate.

Of couse, they would also need to keep the talking heads from predicting the outcome from exit polls and partial vote counts for the entire time the polls are open.

capt_happypants
July 12, 2004, 01:48 PM
For the Michael Moore Left, NOTHING that the administration does will make them happy.

Some days, I wish that the current administration quits, hands the keys over to Moore, Kerry, Edwards, MoveOn and says, "Fine. You do it."

(I'll be in the bunker, by the way) ;)

CannibalCrowley
July 12, 2004, 02:16 PM
fix Nuke in Manhattan. US Capitol destroyed. Supreme Court Justices and several Congresscritters assasinated. Truck bomb at Hartsfield Airport in Atlanta. Chemical attack in LA. Nuke in Dallas/Fort Worth. Takeover of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Poisoned water supply in St. Louis. All on the same day. November 1st. Now what? I guess it boils down to whether you'd like to hear "the election will continue as scheduled" or "the election will be delayed for at least 6 months". Personally, I'd prefer the former.

Not only does postponing the election allow terrorists to directly affect our election, I feel uneasy about an administration being able to keep itself in power due to attacks. If attacks kept happening on or right before the rescheduled dates, would the election continue to get pushed back? If so, then for how long?

This is a dangerous precedent that should not be set.

fix
July 12, 2004, 02:24 PM
Now what do we do about the 25 million voters in New York, Atlanta, LA, DFW, Chi-town, St. Louis, and surrounding areas of each who didn't get out to the polls because they were busy trying to...oh, I don't know...survive? Let them vote later? Who decides? The SCOTUS is dead. Who appoints the new one if the incumbent Pres is not re-elected? The President Elect? How do we know he was really elected?

These kind of things need to be discussed. This is not a simple issue. More than likely we will not have to deal with something along these lines, but discussing it and remaining open minded are certainly advisable.

rock jock
July 12, 2004, 02:31 PM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If an attack occurs on voting day or the days before, the polls will be void in many areas, especially in democrat strongholds since most of those voters need to be bribed to get to the polls in the first place. They will run like scared mice at the first sign of violence. Note that Republicans will too, but I'm betting not nearly in the numbers that the dems will. If the election is declared as still valid, GWB will be accused of plotting a massive conspiracy to defraud the election by turning away the disenfranchised. Postpone the election for a few days and he is accused of being "King George".

fix
July 12, 2004, 02:36 PM
Exactly. That's why this has to be discussed now, in a bi-partisan way.

Ed
July 12, 2004, 02:48 PM
"Reminds me of the fairy tale where the animal (a goose if I recall correctly) is hit on the head by some small particle and is convinced that the sky is falling. No one believed the goose either, and it turned out that the sky WASN'T falling."


It was Henny Penny.
;)

DonP
July 12, 2004, 02:53 PM
"It was Henny Penny."

Nope, Henny Penny was the one that could find no one to help her plant her wheat, harvest it, bake the bread etc. but then everyone wanted her to share her bread with them.

Kind of the spokescritter for classic liberal thinking. You do the work and then when it's done we'll decide who should get what part of the fruit of your efforts.

Chicken Little was "The Sky is Falling". (It helps to have a couple of grandkids under 5 for reference purposes.

FPrice
July 12, 2004, 03:13 PM
"Chicken Little was "The Sky is Falling". (It helps to have a couple of grandkids under 5 for reference purposes."

Like the man said after his hernia operations, I stand corrected. :o

ctdonath
July 12, 2004, 03:13 PM
This country has consistently held un-delayed elections for over 225 years, through civil war, two world wars, etc. The chance of a small dispersed gang of fanatics causing enough disruption to warrant delaying a federal election is pretty much nil. Yes, it is someone's job to think through ALL possibilities, however bizzare; we need not go into extremely unlikely miniscule probabilities.

If there is serious enough concern about events big enough to delay elections, talk the states into implementing the Oregon model of vote-by-mail.

A few dozen AQ members are not going to put 25M people into actual survival mode; baseless hysteria maybe, but not actual danger worse than driving to work.

mountainclmbr
July 12, 2004, 03:14 PM
A delay in an election could be necessary, but any delay for Inauguration Day would be a problem for me.

rock jock
July 12, 2004, 03:17 PM
A few dozen AQ members are not going to put 25M people into actual survival mode; baseless hysteria maybe, but not actual danger worse than driving to work.
Agreed, but the hysteria will be the excuse millions need to stay home and watch Oprah and then complain that the election was stolen and their rights denied.

fix
July 12, 2004, 03:59 PM
Bingo.

sumpnz
July 12, 2004, 04:42 PM
Loosen the tinfoil y'all. If the Wicked Witch of the West doesn't think it would be appropriate to delay the election, what makes you think the man behind the curtain will do so either. "I don't think there's an argument that can be made, for the first time in our history, to delay an election," said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

"We hold elections in the middle of war, in the middle of earthquakes, in the middle of whatever it takes. The election is a statutory election. It should go ahead, on schedule, and we should not change it."

ctdonath
July 12, 2004, 05:09 PM
If a little hysteria is enough for someone to not vote, I seriously doubt they have the gumption to do more than complain to no avail.

It's the ones who show up at the voting booth under duress that may take action if that booth isn't in service.

Trying to inform 80,000,000 voters on short notice that the election has been delayed will cause a major problem with those who don't get the message and show up as originally planned. Even if everything is done right - proper legislation, adequate notification - there will be plenty who disbelieve the delay notice; don't forget about the "joke" going around last time that Democrats were to vote the day after. You gonna believe what you see on TV? or you gonna show up at your appointed polling place, ready to be peeved if it's not open?

Third world countries manage to have legitimate elections depite the hardships of pen-and-paper ballots, wooden ballot boxes, and opponents shooting at them. Short of full thermonuclear war, there is no reason to postpone a USA election.

Khornet
July 12, 2004, 05:39 PM
if the Dems and Pubs got together very publicly and worked on a plan for this contingency?

Jay Kominek
July 12, 2004, 05:51 PM
This shouldn't be a federal issue. At most, the fed should say to the states, "hey, if, you know, a nuclear bomb or something explodes within your borders, then we'll understand if it takes you a day or two longer to get your poll results in." And then if something happens, let the states decide for themselves. After all, they're the ones actually conducting elections.

Also, what is this with delaying them? Why aren't they talking about extending them, or moving polling locations? Or setting up some system where any citizen of state A can go to any polling place in state A? (Or perhaps people in county B can go anywhere in county B. That, at least really shouldn't be too hard for the states to arrange given a bit of time and energy.) Those changes would be useful even if nothing horrible happens, as they'd allow more people to vote more easily.

They could even get the military to air drop absentee ballots, and then allow them to be postmarked up to N days after the election. :)

I just feel as though there are a lot more much better options than an out and out delay.

w4rma
July 12, 2004, 06:38 PM
And then if something happens, let the states decide for themselves. After all, they're the ones actually conducting elections.Unless the Republican leadership decide to go to the Federal Supreme Court to decide the election, like they did last time. (Bush vs. Gore - note that Bush comes first since he filed the case in the federal courts.)Loosen the tinfoil y'all. If the Wicked Witch of the West doesn't think it would be appropriate to delay the election, what makes you think the man behind the curtain will do so either.Democrats are not in control of the government. The debate over whether to cancel or postpone elections is only among Republicans. You won't find hardly any liberal Democrat in favor of postponing/canceling elections and you won't find many conservative ones either.

FPrice
July 12, 2004, 08:15 PM
"Unless the Republican leadership decide to go to the Federal Supreme Court to decide the election, like they did last time. (Bush vs. Gore - note that Bush comes first since he filed the case in the federal courts.)"

You need to check your facts. The SC did NOT decide the election, the voters did. The SC merely kept the Dems from hi-jacking the election by making re-count after re-count after recount, well past any legal limit). There was a small news report several months after the fact (and I mean small, especially in contrast to the Dems loud whining) that every recount came up with Bush winning.

Face it, in simple words...YOU LOST. Fair and square. Continued baseless accusations and innuendo only serve to emphasize your poor attitude towards being beaten by a better man.

Kaylee
July 12, 2004, 08:21 PM
When I first heard the news I was a little concerned... now hearing the intentions and plans, I'm pretty much convinced it's a non-issue. Still, I had a bit of fun with one of the local loon-bats. I have a standing offer for a wager for him.. if GW Bush uses this to indefinately postpone the elections and step up as American Ceaser, as the guy seems afraid he'll do, then I will personally go grab ol' Betsy, vote out the incumbant from a rooftop, and take one for the team.

However, if nothing of the sort happens and the elections continue as planned, he has to place his vote for ol' GW.

So far, no one's taken me up on the deal. :)


-K

w4rma
July 12, 2004, 08:36 PM
FPrice, you have no clue what you are talking about Re: "recount after recount after recount". Go do a little research (http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/statement.html), instead of accepting everything Rush "is on drugs" Limbaugh says at face value.

FPrice
July 12, 2004, 09:50 PM
Who mentioned Limbaugh? Feeling a little...intimidated?

Basically what you are saying is don't believe one source, believe another...one which you just happen to champion.

Considering your obvious bent, your source lacks any credibility.

FPrice
July 12, 2004, 10:12 PM
Here's a non-Limbaugh source for some information on Democratic dirty tricks during the Florida election.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15970

Bill St. Clair
July 12, 2004, 10:25 PM
My favorite quote about the possiblity of delayed elections follows. I won't say who wrote it, but it wasn't me.
There will be a vote on November 2nd.

Either in the polling booth, or from the rooftops.

Their choice ...

Can'thavenuthingood
July 12, 2004, 11:45 PM
Voting is done at the county level, all survivors that are registered to vote, go vote anywhere in the county. If the county is destroyed, the vote is a non-issue.
It's like the weather on a much grander scale. Lotsa rain equals low voter turnout, but the show goes on anyway.

I'm against moving the election date. I'm also saddened by the fact that the "wicked witch of the west" agrees with me. I must review my thinking for errors.

All survivors vote. The voter will have already done their homework. If one of or both "principles" die, there are other candidates. The electoral college decides on who, and they must vote. Atleast I think they must vote as they are not necessarily committed to vote for a dead candidate.

We could end up with a stripper in the white house.
Or has that been done already?

Vick

jimpeel
July 13, 2004, 02:43 AM
From what I read (and heard on radio news), it sounds more like they only want to move the election if there's an attack. I have no problem with that.And what if they want to move the election until after the war on terror is won?

jimpeel
July 13, 2004, 02:56 AM
My favorite quote about the possiblity of delayed elections follows. I won't say who wrote it, but it wasn't me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be a vote on November 2nd.

Either in the polling booth, or from the rooftops.

Their choice ... I wish that there would be greater danger from within for those who would seek to postpone the elections than there ever would be from without; but in this society -- brain numbed by television and fearful thoughts that they might miss tonight's rerun of "Married, With Children" -- I hold little hope for the Republic under the watch of such people.

Ignorance is bliss and they choose to be blissful.

Bill St. Clair
July 13, 2004, 06:56 AM
Jimpeel,

Unfortunatly, you're probably right. But I have a dream... :)

-Bill St. Clair

FPrice
July 13, 2004, 06:57 AM
"And what if they want to move the election until after the war on terror is won?"

And what if we keep asking "what if" for all sorts of vaguely possible but ultimately absurd "what if's"?

We could end up "what iffing" ourselves into a state of paranoid hysteria.

cuchulainn
July 13, 2004, 09:12 AM
We could end up "what iffing" ourselves into a state of paranoid hysteria. Many here already have. :(

NMshooter
July 13, 2004, 11:07 AM
And how many people actually bother to vote? Perhaps voter turnout would be above 50% after such an event. Could enrage lots of people that otherwise would not have cared. Kind of like 9/11.

The Real Mad Max
July 13, 2004, 11:38 AM
Delayed elections! Paranoid drivel set in motion by Demowackos.:rolleyes:

Jay Kominek
July 13, 2004, 12:07 PM
We could end up "what iffing" ourselves into a state of paranoid hysteria.
If the Fed gets to play "what if", I don't see why we can't, either.
Besides, I think that with 225+ years of elections under our belt, with zero delays before now, we should be suspicious if they actually decide to delay them, now.
(Being suspicious of contingency plans being developed is a little excessive. But using them is a completely different matter.)

Gordon Fink
July 13, 2004, 12:16 PM
Very good point, jkominek. If this contingency were being explored by a Democratic administration, many of the Republicans here would have already stroked out.

~G. Fink

“As long as it’s my guy, then it’s okay.”

The Real Mad Max
July 13, 2004, 12:30 PM
And if something so stupendous were to happen under this Administration and there were no contingency plans explored, then the Demowackos would be banging their pots and pans and shrieking to the high heavens asking: "But why didn't you plan when you had all the chatter indicating something drastic was going to happen!!! WHY OH WHY???"

:rolleyes:

(you can't please all the people)

Waitone
July 13, 2004, 12:51 PM
Members of the esteemed forum are forgetting one little factor driving the look-see at delaying and election.

There is only one terror group the ruling class and taxpaying class truly fear. Al Qaeda and associated hangers-on are a tribe of punks. No, real terror and its surgical application is the perview American Trial Lawyers. Leaders of the trial lawyer industry claim to be the true fourth estate not the press. 911 payouts to survivers of the attacks hit the asinine level simply because Tort Terrorists were cleaning their weapons and sharpening knives. It would be far cheaper to cut a deal with truly outlandish payouts than it would be to go to trial.

Fast forward to November 2004. At some point in the late run up to the election or during the voting punk terrs set off a bomb or 6 in certain highly contested precincts. Because of damage the poll area is closed while the mess is investigated and cleaned.

The election is now over. The losers begin employing platoons of attorney (just like Florida 2000) whose sole purpose is to gum up the election process and ultimately inlfuence its outcome. Is there anyone on this forum who doubts my scenario? Do we really want to look at a bear trap then willingly and knowingly step into it? It there anyone on the forum that expects either party to take the high road and voluntarily lay aside what is considered to be a legitimate tool of politics. We can wax poetic over 225+ years of interupted elections. We can look to history to predict the future. We can also be dead wrong. The US is fighting a war on two fronts. One front is against islamofascist terrormongers who seek to destroy us from the outside. The second front is from elements of the bar who perceive themselves above the law and who are greedy beyond measure. We would be quite foolish to fail to prepare for attacks from either front.

The Real Mad Max
July 13, 2004, 01:02 PM
Excellent post sir!

If you enjoyed reading about "Postponed Elections?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!