U.S. Mulling How to Delay Elections in Case of Attack

[D.Shaffer]

I think people are jumping the gun on the panic button here. These are emergency measures, nothing more. As for why would we want to delay the elections, if a week before the elections, someone took out Kerry, Edwards, Bush, and Cheney in a coordinated strike, what would this country do? Last I heard, we have nothing in place should something like that happen.

What will be interesting will be to see how long of a delay they'd stipulate. I would expect at least one forced time stamp to keep it from being indefinitely delayed.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Oh please, thats an absurd scenario that would never happen. Anyway, you cant have an election if all the candidates are dead!

 

[Duddha]

I do think the Bush admin has alterior motives in their request, but one scenario still bugs me. What do we do if there is a terrorist attack on the day of the election that scares a large number of people away from the polls? Isn't the prospect of having a president elected in such a scenario just as bad as having no election at all? I guess the real solution would be to have leaders that compel and inspire the public to brave the polls in so horrible a scenario instead of the fear inducing rhetoric of the Bush admin.

 

[Vanadorn]

If Bush were to postpone the election, it would serve to immediately destroy any chance at the white house for the next 4 years - political suicide. An attack on election day- I'm speaking of a large scale, 9/11 style attack, might distrupt the election process - but for some of us, it would galvanize the country into getting their butts out there and voting.

Elections and voting are a privilege, something too often ignored and marginalized by the public at large as a waste of time or a frivolous activity. The apathetic view of my vote doesn't count is what has the country in the position it is in now. The Conservative/Right-Wing individual is 360% more likely to get out there and vote than his Liberal/Left-Wing counterpart (source: Cranes, March 04).

360%! My god, imagine if Bush had a 360% reduction in votes in 2000? What was the differnece then; only a few hundred? There is no such thing as being a citizen of this great country and not doing the ultimate minimum of your civic duty. Come on, 1 day a year to vote, or at least 1 day every 4 years if you only want to vote during the presidential races. How many days do you spend a year at the movies? arcade? mall? sitting in front of your computer at the civ site? Vegging in front of the TV? Go register (doesn't cost anything), and go vote! (Most voting booths and locations are centrally organized to be within a few miles of where you are - so on your way to get a starbucks mocha-chino or a 7-11 microwave burrito, you should be able to spend 15 minutes waiting on line to vote!)

The only way to begin ending the last 4 years of American sliding in the World Politic is to vote properly and remove Bush from office. None of this Nader vs Kerry hand wrangling. None of the McCain would be better than Powell mess. Don't fall to fear an terror and the bad islam guys will blow up a building excuse. It's very simple - pick a candidate other than Bush, and vote.

As to voting for a dead guy, I heard that in some western state, a recently deceased person running for mayor or sheriff of some smallish town actually received 500 votes! That's both American and Democracy in action. Hell, I'd vote for roadkill off I-95 as opposed to GW and more of his ham-handed bungling of the country's good name, good will, and prosperity.

My most angry and vehement 2 cents.

 

[Sanaz]

Oh please, thats an absurd scenario that would never happen. Anyway, you cant have an election if all the candidates are dead!

And thi sis why they create contingency plans. It's not just for this year, it is for all future years. As long as it sees due diligence, and all the right people approve it, there's no harm. I don't see a conspiracy here, I see a hole in the original plans. Now, if it were used this year, or if it were a hidden plan without proper full-breadth consent, then I'd see potential for conspiracy.

 

[Azadre]

What whould John Adams think...

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Perhaps they will start the elections two days ahead of schedule.


Edit: On the other hand, Al Quaeda does consider GWB the Great Satan. Hard to believe they will do anything to bolster his position.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Vanadorn you rock!

Sanaz, its so obvious, cant you see it? Theyre telling us pointblank that theres going to be an 'attack' and that theyre going to call off the elections. Theyre actually discussing it openly to see what the reaction is. Judging from the nonreaction theyve gotten so far, Im sure the plan has been given the green light. Its not possible to overestimate the passivity of the American people. Even if Bush cancelled the elections completely, dissolved the Congress and ruled by fiat, many Americans would still give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[EdwardTking]

The usual form is that if a significant number of people are
genuinely unable to vote due to physical factors ranging
from earthquake, flood, typhoon etc; then the election is
not cancelled or postponed but that the polling stations
in the areas adversely effected are kept open past the
normal closing time, maybe even re-opening the next day,
so as to enable the people who want to vote, to vote.

I fail to see why terrorism should be treated differently.

The key is in appointing election management officers with
(a) integrity and (b) giving them the necessary discretion.

Most democratic countries can manage this!

 

[Archer 007]

Currently, if you expect the worst, it's exactly what you'll get. The 21st century will probably be known as the "hate to say I told you so"-century for pessimists and cynics.

That would be rather funny.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Oh please, thats an absurd scenario that would never happen. Anyway, you cant have an election if all the candidates are dead!

It's impossible that the Japanese would be able to successfully attack Pearl Harbour! It's to shallow for torpedo's and they couldnt get into the harbor!

Arabian Terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into major landmarks? Why should we even plan for that? Itll never happen.

You'd be suprised how many 'absurd scenarios' have actually happend that were blitheringly obvious after the fact.

And yes..THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT. If a pair of assassins take out Kerry and Edwards on Election day...What happens? Who are people going to vote for? Can the Democrats just pick another candidate to replace him or do they need to go through the primaries again? Would the result of the assassination influence the actual election to the point that election is meaningless? We have NO CONTINGENCY plans for anything like this and until recently, we never though we really needed it. A planned delay is better then the inevitable 'running around like a chicken with its head cut off' that'd be the alternative.

Something people need to remember and often forget...just because we have plans and contingencies, doesnt necessarily mean we actually intend to do it. Heck, the military have contingency plans in case we go to war with Canada and/or Great Britain. How likely do you find that event in the near future?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

We have NO CONTINGENCY plans for anything like this and until recently, we never though we really needed it. A planned delay is better then the inevitable 'running around like a chicken with its head cut off' that'd be the alternative.

Ok, I'll concede that theres nothing wrong with having a plan. Now my question to you is: Who should make these important decisions concerning the elections, an independent bipartisan panel, or an unelected political appointee of the President currently in office?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Ok, I'll concede that theres nothing wrong with having a plan. Now my question to you is: Who should make these important decisions concerning the elections, an independent bipartisan panel, or an unelected political appointee of the President currently in office?

Who should make important decisions in a Democracy ? The citizens. Have a referendum on that topic instead of hiding behind and trusting a panel or a person.

 

[Duddha]

I think we should all note that in the past few days the administration has slowly backed away from this proposal, probably from the negative public reaction.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Who should make important decisions in a Democracy ? The citizens. Have a referendum on that topic instead of hiding behind and trusting a panel or a person.

The only problem with that is that in a referendum, people would be voting on whether its safe enough to vote. Doesnt make too much sense

 

[Ayatollah So]

As to voting for a dead guy, I heard that in some western state, a recently deceased person running for mayor or sheriff of some smallish town actually received 500 votes! That's both American and Democracy in action.

John Ashcroft lost his senate seat to a dead guy (as far as names on the ballot - the dead guy's widow is now senator).

If a presidential candidate were assassinated right before an election, the Electoral College would actually serve a useful purpose for once.

EdwardTking hits the nail on the head. The right thing to do in the event of terrorist attack is to follow the natural-disaster model, and keep polls open longer.

 

[Sanaz]

Ok, I'll concede that theres nothing wrong with having a plan. Now my question to you is: Who should make these important decisions concerning the elections, an independent bipartisan panel, or an unelected political appointee of the President currently in office?

Maybe the Supreme Court? Not bipartisan in reality, but probably as close as we'd get, and they'd be able to make a decision very quickly compared to a popular vote of any kind. Or maybe a bipartisan group of Congress, which is how most important decisions are made.

There are some things I don't trust government with, and some I do. I trust them a lot more when there's an agreed upon plan in place, that has been open to all members of congress and to the court system. If it came out of the executive branch, I wouldn't trust it at all, no matter who was sitting president.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Maybe the Supreme Court? Not bipartisan in reality, but probably as close as we'd get, and they'd be able to make a decision very quickly compared to a popular vote of any kind. Or maybe a bipartisan group of Congress, which is how most important decisions are made.

There are some things I don't trust government with, and some I do. I trust them a lot more when there's an agreed upon plan in place, that has been open to all members of congress and to the court system. If it came out of the executive branch, I wouldn't trust it at all, no matter who was sitting president.

Thats an interesting idea Sanaz but Im not sure that it would fall under the Supremes jurisdiction. Their role is to rule on whether a law or procedure is or isnt Constitutional. As far as I know theres is no law or procedure in place that covers a catastrophic event that occurs around election time. The legislature would have to devise a procedure first. Once this is done its inevitable that there would be legal challenges to it and thats when the Supremes would step in and rule on whether or not its kosher.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Ah don't freak out guys, it's just an idea someone tossed out there that the media seized and started talking about to stir people up. I'm already hearing that the White House isn't really showing any interest at all in the plan. Besides, they'd have to be crazy to postpone the election, it would start another freakin' Civil War.

 

[NateDawgNY]

This is just bad business.
If our government can postpone the election for a terrorist attack, what's to stop them from postponing it for any other reason?