Some (rational) thoughts on prospect of vote delay/cancellation

[Freya]

I think that a lot of people feel that a delay in the vote in November would be the end of the country.

I feel that this is more hysteria than anything else. (even the prospect of it actually, as I don't feel it will happen)

Regardless, I am actually of the opinion a reasonable delay may be a good thing. (note I said DELAY)

Let's imagine something catastrophic happens in one or more major cities. More than likely this will result in 3 things:

1. Some people will be physically unable to reach the polls. (could be polling place is unsafe/destroyed/or maybe there is just major traffic/road closings/etc)

2. Some people will be mentally unable to reach the polls. I know a person from NY who refused to leave her apartment due to fear for a week. (literally)

3. There will be strong emotions all around. Emotions that will take over common sense and logic. Fear/uncertainty/panic/etc. Proven fact is people don't think rationally when in a panic state. This is almost always true.

Ultimately this will mean people will be denied the ability to vote AND many people who can vote will be influenced by irrational emotion.

This irrational emotion can mean one of two things. 1. Massive landslide for kerry or 2. Massive landslide for bush. I am of the opinion it will be number 2, and I think the media has certainly organized peoples minds to make that the case.

So I think a REASONABLE delay (ordered by congress as per its authority in the constitution NOT the executive) would be appropriate. I am thinking reasonable along the lines of 2-3 weeks (assuming nukes or an extremely lethal bio weapon are not used) would be the upper limit of appropriate. This would insure everyone can vote and let people cool down. Further, bush would not leave office in 2-3 weeks anyway - so it's not as if he will be in office any longer as a result. (he can't anyway - according to the constitution he MUST leave office if there is no election, and the VP must take over)

A cancellation is NOT acceptable.

I think the primary reasons of calling a delay unacceptable are the following:

1. There is a delay when nothing has happened. (and when I say "something" happening I am not talking about a car bomb. something along the lines of nuke going off or something else major)
2. There is an announcement of a total cancellation.
3. There is stated delay of 2-3 weeks. (for example) Within 2-3 weeks though people are still not voting.

The europeans schedule elections all the time, and they are in a more free state than we are. Our country has endured a lot. I'm sure it can endure a brief delay in elections if something happened.

The talk of civil war because of a brief delay makes me nervous. I hope no one would end the country (and possibly millions of lives as well) in a civil war because they can't wait 10-15 days, which IMO is the max it would be.

[H2O Man]

1. Justice delayed is justice denied.

The November election is the truest form of democratic justice. Any effort to manipulate the election should be opposed. This is still the United States of America, and efforts to bound and gag the Constitution should be recognized as a threat to our nation.

[ClassWarrior]

26. We WILL NOT allow our elections to be delayed.

And whether they actually intend to do it or not, we need to get word out to the press that the Bush* Administration is even considering it.

OUTRAGE OUTRAGE OUTRAGE!!!

[madfloridian]

2. Oooh. Not much to say to that.

Not worth a response.

[still_one]

3. I will tell you what makes me nervous

An administration whose major policy is preemption, control of the media, trying to create one party in this country by redistricting, appointing judges that have race and sex bias...

If bush wins this time, the neo-cons will consolidate their power base, and I believe it will be at least 20 years, and countless deaths in unecessary wars before a balance is reached again.

This is not what I want to leave my children!

[calico1]

4. There is no reason to postpone them

I have a feeling the attempt will be to postpone them in anticipation of something happening, which is different then as a result of something happening. No justification, sorry. Especially when we can't even believe what the Administration says.

[Pathwalker]

5. We held elections during the CIVIL WAR.

This is a very large country, and suspending elections all over the country doesn't make sense. Nope - I can't support suspending elections - we've had that Monster in power long enough!

[Freya]

7. Hmmm...

I can understand not delaying them all over to extent.

This leads to other questions though. Depending on the results in other states - the results in states that won't get to vote until late may be very different.

Aditionally, all states will be suffering a fear factor.

In the civil war voting was NEVER held in a combat zone. If confederate troops were invading a city you can be damn sure voting would NOT be going on.

Likewise, if your city is being blown up you probably are not going to be able to vote as well. A delay would be the only way to insure EVERYONE gets to vote.

[kayell]

12. You certainly seem confident that cities will be being blown up on

election day. What are you basing this on? Any "guesses" which cities will be involved?

[Freya]

13. Not confident at all

as I said I'm pretty sure nothing will happen.

I'm only talking about worst case scenario. (the only scenarios in which delay would be reasonable)

[displacedtexan]

49. What would keep an ENTIRE STATE from voting?

I would really like to know.

Are the repukes planning to take out Rhode Island?

[Athame]

60. SARS

or something like that. I am hearing several reports or stories about the SARS and Bird Flu epidemics lately and wondering why those stories are coming out now. Yesterday afternoon on NPR there was a long story about the history of SARS and interviews with survivors describing the speed with which it spread through Asia and Canada and the panic it caused. There was another spate of stories about the fumigation of the Sun building after the anthrax attacks...Giuliani's company to the rescue, three years after. Then a friend at a gathering last night mentioned that she had heard the West Nile Virus had reached mosquitoes in California. Something seems to be afoot in the media rumble.

As others have mentioned, a bomb, even a nuclear bomb in one or two cities would not really affect the whole country, but an epidemic would. I think that those expecting a "conventional bomb" are not thinking like the "terrorists."

[Athame]

61. SARS

or something like that. I am hearing several reports or stories about the SARS and Bird Flu epidemics lately and wondering why those stories are coming out now. Yesterday afternoon on NPR there was a long story about the history of SARS and interviews with survivors describing the speed with which it spread through Asia and Canada and the panic it caused. There was another spate of stories about the fumigation of the Sun building after the anthrax attacks...Giuliani's company to the rescue, three years after. Then a friend at a gathering last night mentioned that she had heard the West Nile Virus had reached mosquitoes in California. Something seems to be afoot in the media rumble.

As others have mentioned, a bomb, even a nuclear bomb in one or two cities would not really affect the whole country, but an epidemic would. I think that those expecting a "conventional bomb" are not thinking like the "terrorists."

[Athame]

SARS

or something like that. I am hearing several reports or stories about the SARS and Bird Flu epidemics lately and wondering why those stories are coming out now. Yesterday afternoon on NPR there was a long story about the history of SARS and interviews with survivors describing the speed with which it spread through Asia and Canada and the panic it caused. There was another spate of stories about the fumigation of the Sun building after the anthrax attacks...Giuliani's company to the rescue, three years after. Then a friend at a gathering last night mentioned that she had heard the West Nile Virus had reached mosquitoes in California. Something seems to be afoot in the media rumble.

As others have mentioned, a bomb, even a nuclear bomb in one or two cities would not really affect the whole country, but an epidemic would. I think that those expecting a "conventional bomb" are not thinking like the "terrorists."

[Athame]

62. SARS

or something like that. I am hearing several reports or stories about the SARS and Bird Flu epidemics lately and wondering why those stories are coming out now. Yesterday afternoon on NPR there was a long story about the history of SARS and interviews with survivors describing the speed with which it spread through Asia and Canada and the panic it caused. There was another spate of stories about the fumigation of the Sun building after the anthrax attacks...Giuliani's company to the rescue, three years after. Then a friend at a gathering last night mentioned that she had heard the West Nile Virus had reached mosquitoes in California. Something seems to be afoot in the media rumble.

As others have mentioned, a bomb, even a nuclear bomb in one or two cities would not really affect the whole country, but an epidemic would. I think that those expecting a "conventional bomb" are not thinking like the "terrorists."

[Athame]

63. SORRY for the dupes! LOL

That has never happened to me before. Very embarrassing. :silly:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freya]

11. Please

Yes, I'm part of a conspiracy to deceive the maybe 100 people who will read this. It's part of a master plan.

No I simply don't think the idea that all civil war has to break out with a delay is reasonable. If that happens we can all look forward to FAR worse than a delay in elections. It would mean martial law, bush being in for as long as he wants, and being able to do whatever he wants with out check. No thanks.

If there is a delay I'll wait a reasonable period of time before I go reactionary.

[kayell]

15. I think you are disingenuously misunderestimatiing the readership of DU

[Freya]

28. Fine

If we had it YOUR way we'd be risking the "rally round the president" effect which could lead to an instant 90% bush lead, where as waiting for sometime will bring the down considerably. (just like after 9/11)

But whatever. Be unreasonable, let people vote with their emotions rather than their brains, and you can enjoy another 4 years. Oh well. At least you got to have your traditional unmoving way which makes about as much sense as the traditional hard right fundies being unmoving in their shit despite any rational logic.

[kayell]

32. Ooooh, that made you mad, didn't it?

ROFL

[Freya]

35. Somewhat

having another 4 years because some people won't be reasonable is not a happy thought.

People blamed nader for these 4 years so far. I suppose if it ends up happening the way I think it might we can blame people with attitudes like yours.

[kayell]

37. Ooooh, a new meme, "it's the irrational people who want to keep elections

on schedule who are responsible for us losing democracy". *snort*

[shraby]

64. I think your overestimating the

"rally round the president" thing. Elections should NEVER be postponed or cancelled. If such a thing would happen, you can kiss your constitution goodbye. Already our constitution has been poked full of holes by the administration. Do you think you'd ever get to vote again if the elections were suspended? Don't be naive. You'd better wake up and smell the roses...or should I say stink?

[DBoon]

22. I'd only agree

If the delay were confined to the location where the disruption occured, and only to the extent necessary to hold elections. Any delay would be called by the authorities who normally deal with local disasters - not the Executive branch of the Federal government.

Why is this being brought up now? What about earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, etc.? Many severe natural disasters could affect the ability to conduct elections. Aren't there existing contingency plans for these? Aren't they handled at the local level?

I think the chance of a devastating huricane hitting the Southeast on election day is much greater than the chance of a terrorist attack. Whatever plans would be activated for the hurricane should be activated for the attack.

[Freya]

24. Actually there are

"Why is this being brought up now? What about earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, etc.? Many severe natural disasters could affect the ability to conduct elections. Aren't there existing contingency plans for these? Aren't they handled at the local level?"

Congress years ago decided Alaska could hold it's elections in sept/oct (forget which) if they wanted to because of potential bad weather inhibiting peoples ability to vote in November. They did not take them up on the offer, but still a precedent.

[Solly Mack]

8. Gee..and we can be just like Iraq and Afghanistan

we can have sovereingty...just not full sovereignty.

Sovereignty rest solely with the people through consent. The vote assures that. ANY threat to the vote is the enemy of democracy....and my personal enemy as well. MY consent....and I do not consent to a govt. that would disrupt elections. The people make America sovereign. Bush needs to be reminded of that in the strongest language possible.

[Mountainman]

9. The very thought that we are thinking this kind of crap is fucked!

The Madrid bombings did not change the outcome of the election there. The people were against the war from the beginning. The vote was against the war just as it would have been with the bombing.

The neocons are using this to try to remain in control. I often wondered why, after all the years they worked to gain control, that they would go quietly into the night if they lost the next election. They don't intend to go away.

The idea that someone like you would be so willing to give up on democracy is just disgusting. I don't have words to describe the feelings I have for you. This whole noble experiment we call America is about to disappear from the earth and you a just go along with it like a sheep being let to the slaughter. Disgusting!

[Freya]

16. I think that might have been the goal with Spain

specifically what our media reported.

What was the message? The "terrorists won" in spain. Therefore the subliminal message they were sending was - "vote against bush and the terrorists win". This is why I think people would need time to cool down.

[Mountainman]

27. You mean people would need time to change their minds.

[Freya]

29. In a way

Basically I think they would need time to let logic take over rather than emotion.

[Mountainman]

33. That's bull shit, it is probably the only way Bush Co could win

This is nothing but an attempt to keep the current administration in power. Anyway you want to present it leads to the same conclusion. More than likely Bush would lose the election if it were held as it should be, the only chance they have is a postponement where enough people will change their minds and vote for the bastard!

[Freya]

36. Don't agree

Traditionally after almost ANY major tragedy in this nations history there is an IMMEDIATE rally round the president effect.

What you are saying is the exact opposite of what has been shown to happen in the past won't happen. That doesn't work out.

It's like saying today - unlike all times past - when I put water in the freezer it's going to turn in to a gas rather than a solid.

[Hubert Flottz]

70. Maybe the ReichGopers could hold the vote open until the SD

twists a few million arms like they ReichGopers did in the House on the "Patriot Act" bill tha other day!

I say if the GOP shoves a bill through that tries to TAMPER with the election then it's time to fight back! Not after the election is stolen again, but the day any such NAZI bill passes! If we can't vote, then by God we can't work and pay taxes!

TRUST US ONE MORE TIME SO WE CAN BREAK IT OFF IN YOU AGAIN LIKE WE HAVE EVERY OTHER TIME YOU TRUSTED US! Is the message Tom Ridge sent the American taxpayers! LET TOM'S Fuckin kids bleed for our country, instead of the people who will lose their right to vote!

[thecrow]

50. Duh..... not at all!!!

The people of Spain were mad about the war anyway, as most people in Europe are.
Then they got even MADDER when their president tried to blame the bombings on the Basues.
That's why their elections came out the way they did.

[still_one]

10. The problem is they do not want Congress to decide this

but one person appointed by bush

[Freya]

14. That's not acceptable

and not legal either...

[Solly Mack]

18. and Bush is so concerned with what is and isn't legal

Iraq-illegal invasion
torture - illegal
insider trading - illegal
holding people indifinetly without a trial - illegal

and so on and so forth...

[lazarus]

17. for those attacking Freya for having 20 posts

consider this:

The day before the election NY is hit with a nuke, and Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles are all hit with major car bombs/hijacked plane crashes.

Do you really think a valid election is going to be held the following day? That adequately gauges the true feelings of the American people?

Remember how Bush's approval rating went from @45% to over 90% in 48 hours, due to 9/11? We all know that 90+% was fake; look how fast it fell.

But if an election had been held on, say, 9/14, don't you think Bush would have won in a landslide?

That said, what scares me is the implication from Ridge that they would postpone the elections just due to "threats" of terrorism. I don't trust these people at all.

[Freya]

20. Thank you

this is exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about. Realistically this is how it would be.

[sandraj]

34. That would take an awful lot

of planning, coordination, luck, timing and many other things in the perpetrators' favor. And it would represent a huge failure on the part of our tough-talking war president who's supposedly made the world safer from terrorism.

To me, the real issue here is not postponement of elections, but three+ years of false alarms: fearmongering for the sake of power. The fact is, just about anything this administration says or does is made up of layers and layers of deception and false issues. In my opinion, we should shine a little light on the fearmongering before giving credence to Ridge's alerts.

[calico1]

52. Well, in a situation like that I would understand

But I don't think this is the plan. The plan is to postpone because of some vague terrorist claim. Now, I do believe there should be some plan in effect if something were to happen. I don't know that there is. But that should only go into effect *if* something happens, not because it might happen.

[lumpy]

77. This goes along with my thinking.

A warning of serious terrorist attack could be made to look like an imminent attack by closure of certain facilities, calling out the Guard/troops, and more ducktape advice. Even if it proved to be a false alarm it would be an effective fear tactic. I recall how the 'Cuban crisis' put the fear of an atomic attack into the American people. People really responded by storing food, having plans for survival, etc. in place.

[Solly Mack]

21. That's what bothers me..that mere threats could postpone elections

I don't want to give Bush Inc an inch....they always take 100 miles.

[kayell]

23. I don't trust the "It's the only rational thing to do" meme that is being

circulated everywhere this week. We are being set up, and NO, I will NEVER agree to it, and YES, I am very suspicious of new posters who start right up with this meme, no matter how well they word their arguments.

Fair to newbies? Maybe not. Too Cheneying bad right now. They're not going to steal/stop the election with my willing compliance.

ADDED: I am not attacking Freya for having only 20+ posts. At one time I had 20 posts. At 20 posts I did not choose to circulate the repuke meme of the week. I am saying that it pays to be cautious of someone, no matter how well worded, who starts their DU posting history with RW memes, especially one as dangerous as this. They are trying to make the unacceptable and even unthinkable seem "rational". We shouldn't even consider buying it.

[Freya]

43. I don't feel much need

to defend my self from your accusations. (which BTW are against the rules - and yes, I bothered reading them)

This is a current topic right now. As such it's on my mind and many other peoples. I, like others, want to comment on the current topic. When you had 20 posts was this a current topic?

I try to look at everything from an unbiased view point, think about it, and then form an opinion. I can see situations when a delay - *in my opinion* - would be reasonable. Even if the right seems to be in agreement - well, what can I say? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Of course what I am considering are extreme extreme situations leading up to a reasonable delay. I'd imagine the right would go for a whole lot less.

When considering it further I suppose it may actually be better to bring elections SOONER rather than later. i.e. hold them in early/mid october. That would make most happy, and would allow a lot of room in case anything happened. Unfortunately I seriously doubt congress has that on the agenda. So I have to think about it from a delay perspective.

If you ask me it's the people who suggest having a civil war in such a situation who are way way in the "unthinkable" area. If you wanted to insure a bush monarchy that would be a quick way to get it. I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually the real goal.

Anyway - a reasonable delay in an extreme situation is understandable in my opinion. Apparently it is not in yours. That doesn't mean anything beyond that.

And for future reference regarding exactly where I stand politically in this election - I supported Kucinich, was a delegate for him at state level, and I agree with just about his entire platform. Regardless, I will support kerry/edwards, and I have full intention of voting a straight dem ticket this election.

[kayell]

47. If you think I am in violation, alert on me, let the mods shake it out.

[Don_G]

19. A Massive Landslide For Dimbo?

When over half the country can't stand his guts?

America isn't the Germany of the '30's where a little fearmonger can craft the "State" into his own image and only barely despite the German cultural background of absolute rulers after a disastrous war.

Even the Freepers are starting to wake up to the dangers of this megalomaniac and if he pushes too far and too hard, I do see another Civil War in 4 to 8 years.

[jackstraw45]

25. Bush WILL win a delayed election - they will capitalize on tragedy AGAIN

THIS is the type og image Karl Rove wants you to see before a delayed election

90% approval ratings could happena gain as people "rally around the flag" and Bush.

THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT!

Remember that.

[LTR]

45. I don't think so

I think people are to the point of being terra'ed out. Just witness this week's warning. Most people and many in the media just rolled their eyes.

And this is a double-edged sword for Bush. He could benefit, ala 9/11. But he could also alienate many who may feel he failed in protecting us. Does he really want to take that risk?

The Dems really have to hammer this hard, to the point that if a major domestic attack were to happen, people would turn on Bush.

[jjmalonejr]

30. I think Freya has made some points worth thinking about.

Briefly postponing the elections is not the same thing as canceling them altogether.

I would only advocate postponing elections in the event that a major terrorist attack occurs which would actually interefere with the election PROCESS (i.e. people can't get to the polls, local election officials can't properly mobilize personnel, equipment, materials, etc.)

As for a terrorist attack influencing the electorate, that seems to me to be no rationale for postponing elections, any moreso than a late-breaking sex scandal. If a candidate is suddenly sullied by events, do we postpone the election? No. Let the chips fall where they may. Voters should be expected to make judgements regardless of the events of the day.

Frankly, I'm not sure which way a terrorist attack would push voters and I don't think it's the job of government to make sure that people are voting "in their right minds". It IS however, the job of government to make sure that the election PROCESS can proceed unimpeded.

[Freya]

39. Here is my problem with that

" I don't think it's the job of government to make sure that people are voting "in their right minds"

IF as has been suggested before bush may be behind an attack - either directly or by intentional gross negligence - I have MAJOR issue with him benefiting from it. Maybe if it was all 3rd party it would be a different story.

I don't think letting the chips fall where they may is acceptable in such case.

[jjmalonejr]

41. I hear that, and I would hate that...

...but don't be so convinced that a terror attack automatically helps Bush.

Remember, Bush's mantra is that he has kept us safe. The electorate is starting to question whether or not the Iraq war has anything to do with the war on terror (albeit slowly). Another terrorist attack flies in the face of that claim.

Canceling or postponing elections makes us all very nervous, and rightly so. Postponing it because the conditions aren't right for one candidate or another is a BAD precedent (dirty tricks, even the ultimate dirty trick notwithstanding). What would happen during that postponement? Do you actually expect that people will calm down and we can have a rational discussion about whether MIHOP or LIHOP occurred? I doubt it. It would be a lot more ugly campaigning and an opportunity for Bush to have another "bullhorn moment."

The only excuse for postponing would be events that actually threaten the election process. If time is needed to make sure everyone can vote, it may need to be considered. Otherwise, I can't see a good reason.

[Cat Atomic]

31. I'm sorry, but postponing elections is abject cowardice.

There is no excuse for even considering it.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Following up your thoughts (which are reasonable)

It should be noted that September 11 was election day in New York City; there was a mayoral primary scheduled on that day. Of course the election was postponed for two or three weeks. It was not canceled.

The word canceled is being used in reports. A cancellation, as you point out, would be unacceptable.

Even a postponement should be viewed with suspicion. I don't like saying that, but those currently in power do not hold that power legitimately. As far as I am concerned, legitimacy is like virginity in that when it is lost it cannot be regained; therefore, no Bush administration can ever be legitimate, regardless of the election results in November.

We should also bear in mind that this administration has used national security for political purposes far beyond what is acceptable. Security alerts are issued for nebulous reasons following any string of bad news. Dissidents, opposition candidates and their supporters are portrayed as "wild eyed" maniacs. One may ask that if Bush is leading in the polls by 20% on election day if the elections would be canceled even if Osama dropped nukes on New York, Chicago and Los Angeles; we should not be surprised if there is talk of canceling the election if Bush falls behind.

The Bushies weren't above stealing the 2000 election and they aren't above playing politics with national security. These people don't play by the rules and believe, astonishingly, that rules are for suckers. We would be right to view suspiciously any "postponement" of the election as being indefinite and permanent if they think that is the only way they could hold on to power.

What we may need is a set of guidelines to be put in place now to determine what events would justify a postponement of the election and what events would lift that postponement. We have every reason not to trust Bush and his people with our freedom. They hate us for our freedom.

[bobthedrummer]

40. I am extremely leery of posters that use terms like "rational", "crazy

conspiracy theory", "wingnut" etc. to propound questionable ideas-the RW does this as SOP to promote their psychopathology as logic imo.

This only bolsters the bullshit coming from the criminals in the administration of George W. Bush aka The War President.

Welcome to DU, Freya.

[LTR]

42. Major events in which elections still took place

- War of 1812 (1812)
- Civil War (1860 and 1864)
- WWII (1940 and 1944)
- Korean War (1952)
- Vietnam War (1964, 1968 and 1972)
- Iran hostage crisis (1980)

I know I must be missing some.

Elections occurred in 1812 as Washington laid in burning ruins.

The 1860 election still took place when the South was on the verge of seceding. In 1864, elections still took place at the peak of the war.

Elections still took place in 1940 as Europe and Asia were deep in war, and the US was close to entering. 1944 elections took place at the peak of US involvement. FDR died shortly before the end of the war, and Truman proceded effectively.

Truman's successor, Eisenhower, became president while the Korean War was still being fought with no end in sight.

In 1964, the US was involved in Vietnam on a smaller scale than in 1968 and 1972. Elections were heated and hostile, but still went on.

And the US was involved in quagmires with both Iran and the Soviet Union in 1980. Elections still proceded.

Don't forget, there was a major terrorist attack on a US ship (the USS Cole) right before the 2000 elections.

In short, in 228 years, there has never been an election cancelled or postponed. The Constitution has seen to that.

Elections were scheduled in New York City around the time of the 9/11/01 attacks and were postponed. But NYC was the epicenter of the attacks, and it was near impossible to effectively procede. By this example, there would have to be large scale attacks throughout many metropolitan areas in order for the US to postpone attacks. Therefore, it would be ludicrous to cancel or postpone them.

Besides, if elections were postponed, I'm sure there are a lot of Bush supporters who would be miffed enough to change their votes. I highly doubt many Americans would stand for this. Just look at the opinions of this on Free Republic, for example. Sure, they're all hard-core Bush supporters, but very few of them think this is a good idea.

If this goes through, there is a serious danger of it backfiring on the Bush Administration. This could easily destroy him.

[kayell]

44. Consider this - the more people who accept that delays/cancellations are

acceptable, the more likely an election day/week attack becomes. If it is clear that no matter what, elections will happen, then no matter who the perps are, there would be less profit for them to attack at that time. (slight edit for hopefully improved clarity)

In other words, here's a meme for you: People who want to postpone elections support the terrorists (whoever they may be).

[LTR]

46. If elections are postponed/cancelled...

...the terrorists win.

Repeat often.

[kayell]

48. Much better wording, thank you.

[sally343434]

51. I'm surprised at some of you

Any election is a "snapshot of the moment." Some of these "moments" are peaceful, some aren't. All of this discussion lately of "postponing" the election (including this obvious troll thread) is merely a trial balloon to see how The Cabal can avoid getting thrown out of power. As mentioned in another response, none of this would even be considered if Bush weren't sinking in the polls. That alone should tell you what's up.

Maybe the criminal enterprise that is called The Republican Party should promote yet another entry on their long list of desired constitutional amendments: Elections may only be held when the likelihood of losing is at its lowest. After all, isn't that what they've already done in congressional gerrymandering? Now that they've effectively diminished any threat of losing district-wide elections, the next step is to "lock up" the one nationally elected office -- that of the president.

[kayell]

54. Were you meaning to respond to me? I thoroughly agree with you.

[JLuckey]

53. What if?

First Post, Thank You, just a little nervous

What if Nov.1st there's a terrorist attack, Congress meets in emergency session and postpones elections 2 Weeks in the interest of preserving our sacred voting privileges and safety. What would Rush, Hannity, Fox News say the next day. WE TOLD YOU SO!!... and they would have 2 WEEKS to pound in our heads about Arab terrorist running rampant thru our streets. Leave my Election alone.

[midwayer]

59. Patriot Act 1 & 11

According to Al Martin they don't need to meet.

Listening to Al Martin on Tony Trupiano from Friday.

He had a couple of scary things to say regarding this.

He says Pat 1 gave expanded Presidential power through "edict" to cancel the election UNCHALLENGED in a time of National crisis.

Also says as they piecemeal Pat 11 through you can start kissing the 1st ammendment goodby as it labels, basically anyone or citizen FACTION questioning the government as "seditious"

Listen the last hour of Friday July 9th archived show

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/

[union_maid]

55. It would scare the hell out of me, but...

I would rather see a reasonable delay than see a major metropolitan area left out of the vote. If it's close, that could swing a state and and the election to Bush. Seems to me that holding the election regardless does not favor our side.

[Kenneth ken]

56. welcome to DU

I have been mulling this idea over for the past day or two; since it first came up in the Ridge conference/press briefing.

First, I thought, total rubbish, elections weren't postponed during the civil war, etc.

Then I thought, well, maybe a delay of a couple weeks if something ACTUALLY happened, because it could cause problems locally in the effected area(s)

Then I started thinking about the size of this nation, and the nuber of people. I do believe the only option is to absolutely, unequivocally refuse to postpone or cancel elections.

There can be no real justification for postponing the election in, say Oregon, if an event occurs in Delaware. That's surrending to the fear that something "might" also happen in Oregon.

A postponement in some parts of the country, and not others would have the tendency to skew the results, because it's extremely unlikely the media would sit on the known partial results.

I believe the elections must be held as scheduled; worst-case scenario, due to an actual event, some people don't get to vote, and so the overall results are open to questions of what if - how is that different than 2000?

***

So, what do we do if "our leaders" in their infinite folly decide to put in place, then effect a postponement? Civil war?

I'm not so keen on violence. I do think, given that we have a bit over three months to prepare and spread the word, a national strike and boycott as a response to a postponed or canceled election would be a better first option than fighting in the streets.

Refuse to go to work; refuse to buy. (Stock up as much as possible between now and November)

Martial law can crack down on people out and about, but it seems highly unlikely that they would drag you out of your home and force you to go work or go shopping.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Bump

It's worth some discussion.

[Still_Loves_John]

58. Thank you

The only way the elections would ever be postponed would be if there was a massive, 9/11 size attack either right before or on election day. They're not gonna close the polls because of vague threats, no one would let them get away with it; it's way more transparent than anything even they have done.

You did a good job of laying out the reasons why it would make sense to temporarily delay elections in the event of a massive terrorist attack.

[shraby]

65. Even if there were an attack

how many of the polling places would actually be hit? Very few, and the other polling places could pick up the slack and we could still have an election on the appointed day.
We can't let them postpone or cancel an election for any reason.

[Still_Loves_John]

74. That's true

but if they just disturbed elections in one state, that would be incredibly unfair to the voters there. And it would invite a host of problems if, for example, the vote was disrupted in a state that had more electoral votes than the margin of victory.

And aside from that, just think of how most people felt after 9/11. We were incredibly emotionally vulnerable, and lots of people were willing to wage war on Canada if someone told them to. I think that a massive terrorist attack screws up the population emotionally, and we could probably use a cooling off period for a few weeks before we cast our ballots.

And I'm really with you for the most part. I don't think the elections should be postponed except in the most extreme circumstances, but if there were a massive attack right at the time of the elections, I think that the prudent thing to do would be to delay the election for just a few weeks, until the dust settles. It would probably help the democrats in the long run, since immediately after the attacks people would want to rally around the president, but after a waiting period they may wonder how he let this happen again.


This is all hypothetical for me though. I really don't expect a terrorist attack before the elections; they've never attacked on a special day before, and I really don't think they'll do it now. And aside from an outright attack, I don't think they would be able to get away with postponing elections. People can be manipulated by fear, but pretty much everyone holds elections sacred, and wouldn't let them be postponed because of some vague threats.

[oldcoot]

66. The main reason we should not delay elections

Once we establish this very dangerous precedent, what is to stop a president of the United States (any president) from staging a terrorist attack if he or she gets behind in the polls? After the attack, he or she can appear heroic and use the attack for propaganda purposes to show how presidential he or she is.

A possible solution might be to have elections for a month or two months instead of just a single day. In Nevada, for example, we are early voting so voters do not have to wait before election day to vote. If the whole nation adopted this, it would be harder for terrorists to disrupt an election.

We should remember that the right to vote is a precious right. Politicians and the media tell us we should remember those who paid the ultimate price so we could have this right. We also should remember the courage of people in developing democracies who are willing to risk violence to exercise this freedom. This is why a terrorist attack should not prevent us from going to polls and voting.

[neebob]

67. Good points

plus if the attack was on the scale of 9/11, more people would be asking how it happened again and blaming the Badministration immediately. I don't think a civil war would break out, though. Most people are too busy comparing their possessions to those of the neighbors and figuring out how to get more to risk losing everything.

[gpandas]

68. much ado about nothing, nothing personal. n/t

[sendero]

69. This one is easy....

... no delays of elections or the terrorists "win".

It is as simple as that. Delaying elections is not going to help anything, if we can't stop a strike on election day how can we stop one a month or two later?

This issue is a non-starter, and the Dems in the Senate and on the campaign trail better shoot it down NOW.

[BrewerJohn]

71. the problem with trying to be 'rational'

on this topic is that the cabal in power in Washington has proven itself not trustworthy with our most precious institutions. Anything they tell us--even if it seems on the surface to be reasonable--needs to be regarded with the utmost suspicion. It's been well demonstrated that they will use anything, however tragic, as a tool to their advantage.

As an aside, those Dems in Congress who constantly roll over in the attempt to appear 'reasonable' are almost as dangerous, because they fail to get the first point and their failure lends a veneer of legitimacy to the whole corrupt enterprise.

So if they're telling me that, in all seriousness, there would need to be an unprecedented delay in the election if there were an attack, my first instinct is to question. Is the entire country under bombardment? No? OK, hold the election and hold it open until everyone has had the opportunity to vote. That's less of a departure from normality than a delay would be, and the difference may mean everything in terms of holding on to our democracy.

[ibegurpard]

72. It is not irrational to object vehemently to the unprecedented idea

of cancelling or even POSTPONING elections. I suggest you think about it again.

[Q]

73. "people who can vote will be influenced by irrational emotion"

- Isn't this what you have right now? The Bush* government uses FEAR and TERROR to inspire 'irrational emotion'.

- Informed consent is all a citizen needs to vote rationally.

- It's interesting...and telling...that long before there is such an 'emergency' that would cause an election to be 'cancelled'...many are already agreeing that it would be a good thing. This causes me to believe that the Bushies wouldn't have much of a problem postponing an election because they would have the support of a good portion of the (frightened) population. Not to mention that Bush's* SC would be there to back him up.

[Disturbed]

75. Credibilty!

BushCo has lost a lot of that and it seems will be losing even more as the next months roll by. This is a huge problem. If most Amerikans that are not part of the Bush Cult lose trust in the Govt. what is the result?

[lumpy]

76. It won't be a brief delay.

The proposal would put the power into the hands of the commander in chief. Bushco has already declared that we are in a continual state of war. Under such a proposal, the voting booths could be closed for an indeterminate span of time. It is bad enough that the power to envade without well proven cause is bad enough. This would almost guarantee that this sort of power will be abused if put in the hands of a proven cabal of liars who invaded Iraq under the convoluted claim that Iraq was a threat to the US. How anyone could trust this administration is beyond me. They have proved they will do anything to guarantee a continuation of a Bushco administration.