Reply #15: No, I see it more as a way of allowing people to get to the polls [View All]

[liberalpragmatist]

Do you really think that if there's a dirty-bomb attack in LA that saps up all the US media coverage (rightly so) people are going to feel comfortable going out and voting? Turnout would be limited to those that turned out that morning before the attack and a VERY limited number that step out to vote thereafter. Recall 9-11. Were people out and about and stepping out of the house a lot that day? Many people, all over the NE and eastern seaboard, and even many outsdie that area, left work or school early. Everybody who did go home, pretty much stayed there.

You can argue with that impulse on a rational basis. For the vast majority of Americans, they'll be fine going to vote. But the element of fear is strong and most Americans will not feel comfortable voting in that environment. And what if terrorists decide to bomb voting sites around the country? Do you really think people would feel comfortable going out to vote after that?

Can we really trust the results of an election in which only 20-30% vote? It is true that a delay would likely change some minds, but on the whole it would probably be more accurate and a more legitimate mandate if a fresh election were to be held, say, a week or 2 afterward.