DescentBB

From CNN, err, Newsweek:

Newsweek reported that Soaries expressed concern that no federal agency had the authority to postpone an election and asked Ridge to ask Congress to give his commission such power.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/ ... index.html

My question is: Do you think a federal agency should have the authority to postpone an election?

There are a million things that can influence an election shortly before that election. In the context of the election date, the moral relativist in me sees little difference between a bombshell news story that hurts a candidate, and a terrorist attack that hurts a candidate. The desired effect of postponing elections seems geared toward eliminating political harm a candidate might receive by the rash voting actions of the electorate.(queue references to Spain) I may be wrong in my reading of the Constitution, but I've never seen anything that states that voters may not vote based on emotional irrationality. We are allowed to vote for whomever, based on criteria that we choose.

Short of a scenario where people throughout the country are directly put in harms way by voting, I don't believe there is a good reason to postpone an election.

IMO, allowing the election to be postponed in the event of an attack on the nation would be a good thing.

One reason for this is that it gives AQ less reason to try to strike right before the election to influence the results -- if they know we'll hold off the election for a few days in the case of a strike, then they have less reason to try to make that strike.

Though, knowing the American public... if AQ makes a strike right before the election, it's going to be Bush in a landslide, as a "f*** you too" response to AQ.

Yeah, that's where I feel the election would go. America's response is typically to get mad in response to something like an attack.

Imagine this scenario: Al-Quaeda simultanously incapacitates two major cities, such as New York and LA, on Election Day. Assuming the midwest and south vote for Bush (a logical assumption), what would the Democratic party's response be? Answer: "The election needs to be postponed until everyone can vote." The Republicans would say that there is no legal basis for postponing an election, and the Supreme Court would most likely have to agree. Wouldn't it be better to know what would happen in just such a case?

Just the understanding that the US will do what is necessary to stabilize the atmosphere following an attack aimed at creating a kneejerk reaction within voters may be enough to disrupt any AQ plans. Also, Jeff, as far as human responses go, there's a world of difference between the emotional reaction to an enemy attack and the calm deliberation of an negative news story. Add to that the predictable fear many folks would experience about going to a polling place (or even a significant number of persons unable to vote due to emergency procedures or damages), conditions that wouldn't accompany revelations of political scandal. I don't understand how your two scenarios are equivalent at all except in the most broadest of definitions. I also think the lawsuit angle needs to be considered. Either candidate could have reasonable cause to dispute the results considering the chaotic circumstances which would predictably follow an enemy attack.

And finally, FWIW, I believe a terrorist attack would benefit Bush since he is perceived (rightfully so, imo) as the more resolved cadidate to confront terrorism. Americans would not recoil like the Spanish. It's our nature (most of us, anyway) to want to fight back. Any postponement would benefit the left but I still regard it as a prudent contingency plan.

Maybe we need a premature electoration?

(saying it seriously)
Why not, instead of postponing the election, scheduling it a little early, and being willing to push it back to the traditional date if necessary? Would there be a legal difference between the two?

My gut feeling is to hold the elections as scheduled. While Lothar makes a good case for postponing the elections, by having such contingency plans opens the door for left or right wingers (not just foreign terrorists) to attempt dirty tricks to disrupt the electoral process. This country is a big enough place that bombing a few places prior to election should not be cause for rescheduling the vote. Perhaps after such an attack, the other 50% of americans who don't vote...will.

"I don't understand how your two scenarios are equivalent at all except in the most broadest of definitions of both being an interuption."

Both are actions that influence perception, which postponement is desired to alleviate.

Like I said, the only reason I would consider as legitimate to postpone an election is a direct danger to those attempting to vote across the country. Say, a major operation to plant thousands of pipe bombs at polling places throughout the nation.

In New York City, on 9/11/2001, there was a local election that was postponed. I have no disagreement with that action. The chaos in that city was just too great. If the WTC attacks were to be extrapolated from proportional to NYC to proportional to the US, I would see a legitimate reason to postpone elections. In that case, we would all have more important things to worry about. But what if there were national elections that day. Should they have been postponed? I don't think so.

If, on November 1 or 2, there is a hurricane in Florida and an earthquake in California that cause havok on the elections, do the elections get postponed? No. Should they be postponed? I don't think so. I don't see any reason to treat a terrorist attack any differently just because it is more political in nature.

Heh, a google on the NYC elections in New York revealed that Rush Limbaugh holds a view similar to my own. Go figure, eh?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/ ... guest.html

I mean, the fact is, if you ask me, I'm just a humble little radio talk show host here, struggling, striving to get by each day, the fact is the only plan, in my mind anyway, the only thing we need to be planning for is to ensure the election goes forward, regardless of any kind of attack, period.

snip

Make plans right now to see to it the election happens, the results that we get on that day stand, everybody agrees to it, no flurry of lawsuits or whatever because if we don't we're just, as I say, it's an invitation, engraved or otherwise.

It seems the idea that postponing an election will curtail legal action is a case of, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. I think if there are legal challenges to be made in an election, deal with it. It's how it's done.

Personally, I also think Lothar is right, in that an AQ attack near election day could boost Bush. Therefore, a postponement, in my mind, would help Kerry. I'm not sure I agree with you, Jeff, that this is because "he is perceived (rightfully so, imo) as the more resolved cadidate to confront terrorism," but because it would be a 'rally around the president' time. Of course, thats debatable.

If AQ is going to attack before the election, their plans are most likely already in place, so whatever it is, it probably doesn't take into account postponing the election. I could speculate on the intentions of AQ and the Bush Admin, and possible future scenarios, but this would all get real messy.

In the end, it's always safe to have a contingency plan, so I don't really object to having the plan. It's the discussion of when to enact the plan that I'm concerned with. It's weird. I think I have a more conservative position on this than you guys(or vice versa). Trippy.

I would think they would just postpone the polling in the affected area and the rest of us would vote and wait for the few places that had to postpone.

As to the positive or negative results for Bush following an attack:

I think Vanders "rally around the president" is already happening. In my opinion the Dem's blew it by trying to 'support the troops but oppose the mission' and by being in complete denial about the economic recovery...the jobs...the success in the WoT... and now Bush is benefiting from a rally around him that started a while back and grows with each whacko failed attempt to politicize the war.

I don't even think it's a conscious effort on the part of some people, in general people just have an inate sense for spotting the really blatent disingenuous positions that the Dem's have taken.

They would have done better by saying "Yes the WoT is justified but there is much more we should do..." and then lay out their case for a better america (whatever that would be for them... I'm not sure they have that page in their book).

Anyway, I can't help but wonder if the plan to postpone is just a normal exercise in contingency and someone dug it up and is trying to play it up as another example of 'intrusive Bush administration' hype.

One thing is sure, I can't wait for this election to get over with so I can see where we all really stand on stuff because the Hate/NoHate Bush prism is just too damn distorting.

Vander and I agree? Whats the world coming to.

The End of Days is surely upon us.

Lothar wrote:IMO, allowing the election to be postponed in the event of an attack on the nation would be a good thing.

One reason for this is that it gives AQ less reason to try to strike right before the election to influence the results -- if they know we'll hold off the election for a few days in the case of a strike, then they have less reason to try to make that strike.

Though, knowing the American public... if AQ makes a strike right before the election, it's going to be Bush in a landslide, as a "f*** you too" response to AQ.

first of all, the thing about democracy that we must preserve above all is the bloodless transfer of power between duly elected candidates. any suspension of the election process is the doom of democracy. the fact they would consider a type of martial law is appalling.

democracy and the USA can be just fine without Bush for president. further, i believe that another domestic attack or intel miscalculation would sink the hopes of the republicans to remain in office.

twice on their watch? please.

Palzon wrote:...i believe that another domestic attack or intel miscalculation would sink the hopes of the republicans to remain in office.

twice on their watch? please.

Do you think the Dem's, or anyone, has the ability to stop a clandestine terrorist attack in this country?

With a few good men I could make 9/11 the second worst attack in recent history just using readily available materials.

I think a second attack would guarantee a Bush victory because he's the aggressive candidate and america would want to hit back, Kerry is the 'Let's go to the U.N. and get some outside help/permission' candidate.
When you're mad as hell you don't look for a wimp to watch your back.

i never said the dems would handle it better. just that another attack would result in bush losing. he might even then postpone the election in a bid to maintain power under the guise of "national security".

we postpone the elections and the terrorists win. I'm sick and tired of living by a color coded system, all these "credible" intel warnings, I'm not changing my life. You change yours, they win.

I think the warning levels need a color change. How about cyan?

Bah. It doesn't work.

edit by Lothar: yes it does, if you know the right tags...

Lets downgrade our terror level to "Polkadot Puke yellow with brown zebra stripes"

Palzon wrote: he might even then postpone the election in a bid to maintain power under the guise of "national security".

]

Where you'd get this off the wall idea?

woodchip wrote:My gut feeling is to hold the elections as scheduled. While Lothar makes a good case for postponing the elections, by having such contingency plans opens the door for left or right wingers (not just foreign terrorists) to attempt dirty tricks to disrupt the electoral process.

That's basically my reaction as well. Keep in mind that we've had elections on that firm date throughout all of the World Wars and even the Civil War. Are we in a more urgent state now than when the world was at war? Though the "optimists" in power might lead us to think that way, I have my doubts.

The more I think about it, the more I think the Senate needs to come down with an amendment saying "Congress shall not move the date of the election." It would just put an end to this.

If we move the date of the election, then the terrorists have won. Its that damned simple, stupids.