Postponed Elections?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
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.
 
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) ;)
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
"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.
;)
 
Flame War!!!

"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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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."
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Would't it be cool

if the Dems and Pubs got together very publicly and worked on a plan for this contingency?
 
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.
 
And then if something happens, let the states decide for themselves. After all, they're the ones actually conducting elections.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
w4rma...

"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.
 
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
 
FPrice, you have no clue what you are talking about Re: "recount after recount after recount". Go do a little research, instead of accepting everything Rush "is on drugs" Limbaugh says at face value.
 
w4rma...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Breaking news -- California recall vote STOPPED
2 3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Silver Bullet
S
H
  • Locked
NY Post Headline: JUST LIKE THE BAD OLD DAYS: 9 SLAIN IN 22 HOURS
Replies
9
Views
906
mete
M
M
  • Locked
Obviously this is America's fault...
Replies
9
Views
750
Sergeant Bob
S
T
  • Locked
Terrorists Win - Prime Minister Orders Spanish Pullout from Iraq
Replies
16
Views
819
TheEgg
T
B
  • Locked
Iraq death tolls exceeds that of the war
2 3 4 5
Replies
117
Views
3K
geronimotwo
G
Back
Top