Postponed Elections?
- Thread starter Zrex
- Start date
- Status
John Hicks
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 143
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
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
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.
Of course there will be people who try and make this into more than it is.
w4rma
member
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
Member
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.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
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
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
CannibalCrowley
Member
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?
FPrice
Member
w4rma...
"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.
"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.
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.
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
Member
ProGlock...
"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.
"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
Member
Psychotropic medications are good only in the thereaputic range prescribed by your psychiatrist.
Too much, and...
Too much, and...
DonP
Member
Nice conundrum
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.
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.
pittspilot
Member
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
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
Threads have been merged. I’ve deleted my duplicate remarks.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Preacherman
Member
Duplicate threads merged.
- Status