Ok. I'm actually SORT OF in favor of a plan to delay elections

[liberalpragmatist]

WAIT! Before you all flame me, PLEASE READ THE POST. I request that you respond to this in a civil manner. You're completely free to disagree and I understand the opposing view.

Disclaimer: I DO NOT TRUST THE WHITE HOUSE and *'s Junta to carry this out honestly. Especially b/c they're talking about giving Tom Ridge the authority to delay the race.

HOWEVER, in theory, I think on a substansive level, it's not a bad idea for Congress and constitutional lawyers to discuss a national policy in the event of a major terrorist attack or other catastrophic event. It's true that elections continued during the Civil War, but that was an ongoing event, not a sudden, disruptive force. At Findlaw.com, Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram Amar have discussed this in detail. While I'm not sure of their political leanings, their writings make clear that they're not Conservatives.

What I would favor IN THEORY is this: Congress to authorize a national commission composed of equal members of all large parties (2 of course, at present, hopefully in the future, more) along with a large contingent of independent figures. Each group will be broken down into a delegation (i.e. Dems, Repubs, independents) and meet in the event of a major attack or other event (assassination of a political candidate, etc.) and if 66% of each delegation votes in favor of delaying the national presidential election, they may do so PROVIDED they set a new date to be no later than 3 weeks thereafter. They may also recommend that states postpone state elections and other elections that are administered by the state, such as congressional races.

Contrary to what some have said, the Constitution gives Congress the right to set the dates of national elections - only the dates of inaugurations are set by the Constitution. If Congress were to do so in a constitutionally sound manner that respected the entire spectrum of political opinion, then delaying an election could be legit in my view.

In no way does this justify Bushco's illegal proposal to give the WH sole authority to delay the race. I oppose it.

[Carni]

1. No flame here.. I see your point

And frankly IMO the bush reich could be planning to use a NO plan to their advantage.

[nini]

2. In theory.. yes - but we all know why this has come up ..

and because of that.. hell no - not now.

[Carni]

7. But that's the thing

Bush and his cohorts are known for the bait and switch and it concerns me that the mainstream media actually jumped on this
(it was certainly a first)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

3. Why don't we just leave everything just the way it is.

[MichiganVote]

4. Ok

Let's recommend that every country in the UN also delay their elections due to terrorism. And while we're at it, lets consider some other election influences that may prove problematic. Suppose the Afghans locate and take out Osama. Should we delay an election for that? Seems reasonable to assume his capture or killing would be a feather in the Bush camp's cap after the way in which they have berated the Clinton admin.

Nope. No delay. Ever. Bad, bad, but clever president

[MichiganVote]

5. One more thing....

remember this is the same Congress that was blind to the whole WMD debacle. Not too bright these moonbeams.

No election delay.

[Carni]

13. Just hear me out on this

I posted the below last night on another thread and it sort of covers my concerns (although not entirely it's too hard to explain)

I don't know how to communicate what I am trying to say but I am going to try...

I am VERY familiar with the way the bush reich operates and nothing is as it would seem at face value when you see it on the news (in a timely manner) right?

There is ALWAYS a bait and switch.

To my knowledge there is nothing concrete in constitutional law right now that says an election CAN'T be postponed, or reheld, in the event of an attack, or an event of some kind in certain, specfic, isolated areas... so IF bush and his cohorts were to contrive a "terra" attack on election day and tons of people were kept from the polls (in blue areas) it is conceivable that the Dems would have legal recourse in court to have another vote later (or something) right?

If bush and company were to close that loophole NOW... due to public outrage over the possibility of a postponed election, we could be screwing ourselves in advance (legally) if that loophole is closed.

Again, I am not communicating this well... but if this issue is on CNN Faux and whatever else NOW, then you can damn sure bet that it's being blasted out there for a reason. The media is certainly not slanted towards a Kerry win.

Let me again clarify I think this is all bullshit I am just trying to determine what they are up to.

[proud patriot]

6. I believe it should be up to the states

to come up with their own plans .

[Carni]

16. I think that's the ticket

Because we know who the Feds are and that IMO is scary...if bush contrives a reason to shut down the polls with bogus "terra" in blue states, then what recourse would Kerry have later?

It's a double edged sword IMO

[Guaranteed]

8. What's the point of the delay in the first place, though?

Are people going to change their minds somehow in that hopefully short period of time? On edit: And so what if they do?

This is just an excuse for Bush to mess with the elections.

[shockingelk]

11. See my post, #9 n./t

[liberalpragmatist]

15. No, I see it more as a way of allowing people to get to the polls

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.

[Guaranteed]

18. It's too risky even talking about this.

You shouldn't be giving this to them.

You start talking like this, and if the Repukes get a bad feeling election day they're going to MAKE it happen.

[shockingelk]

9. I agree! Questions for disagreers

Good point about Congress setting the dates.

I just reject the notion delaying the vote would help Bush.

I've not read a hypothesis that rescheduling the election could be good for Bush. Is there one? One of the claims he's running on is that he's made America safer. How An attack on US soil would hurt, not help Bush.

Additionally, if it were in a large urban area, and those people couldn't get to the polls, that would be a HUGE advantage for Bush. How would NY fare without many votes cast in NYC? IL without Chicago? CA without Los Angeles? Not rescheduling it would hurt Kerry, certainly.

So how would rescheduling it help Bush?

[Guaranteed]

14. If he reschedules it once, there's no reason for him not to

reschedule it again.

You know what? We shouldn't even be discussing this. It's giving too much creedence to a needless proposal.

[shockingelk]

20. If they did it without good reason,

there would be impeachments before you could say "Even partisan Republicans think holding elections is a good idea."

[Guaranteed]

21. What's the good reason the first time?

Those who can should go VOTE.

Thousands of people die everyday, and we're not waiting for them to come back to life so that they can fricking vote.

[shockingelk]

22. People dying has nothing to do with it

That's a specious argument.

The good reason is that all polling places should be open and fully staffed when people show up to vote, and people should be able to get to them.

Just think about possible scenarios: On Nov 2, a truck filled with explosives blows up on a bridge into Manhattan. It does little damage, but all bridges are closed. Nobody that works in Manhattan but lives elsewhere (and vice versa) is able to make it to their polling place.

New York State delivers their electoral votes reflecting the will of the states citizens, unless they work in Manhattan and live elsewhere. Those people don't count. They'll have another chance in a couple years, eh?

[Guaranteed]

26. Shit happens.

We're not changing the whole damned thing for one group of people. If people want to make really sure that they get to vote, they should vote absentee.

This is just a really bad idea, in particular because it is so reckless to give the Bush administration that kind of power.

Those that really want to vote will find a way.

[shockingelk]

27. Not very egalitarian of you

"We're not changing the whole damned thing for one group of people."

Do you have the same sentiment about that one group of people who shouldn't be on FL's felon list?

How about that one group of people in Palm Beach who had to use the butterfly ballot? Shit happens?

[Guaranteed]

31. Those people should have been counted.

I'm not saying that people's votes shouldn't count. You're distorting what I'm saying.

What I AM saying is that we can't call "do-over!" in a nation of 150-200 million eligible voters just because some folks didn't get their asses out and vote. You want to do the whole election over?

Will we ever get a perfect election, or are we doomed to an endless string of do-overs?

[shockingelk]

33. What about a "do over" in FL 2000?

Would that have been a good idea?

And you say "I'm not saying that people's votes shouldn't count. You're distorting what I'm saying." That's not what my examples implied: the "one group" of felons on FL list were prevented from voting in the first place, similarly to people who may not be able to vote because their precinct's polling place is closed. And I think it's reasonable to say that the Palm Beach butterfly ballot prevented that "one group" from accurately registering their intention with their vote.

[JSJ]

29. in chicago, dead people vote all the time n/t

[Carni]

17. I agree completely

You just said what I was trying to say last night (in a MUCH more understandable way!)

[Zen]

10. I have "qualified" all of my comments on this subject "of course"

you have to "plan" for what to do in case of an attack. I wouldn't make a big deal out of it and I would leave any decision making away from the President.

[mmonk]

12. Delaying elections could be legit

or abused. It's the abused part that bothers me since the rightwing in power doesn't repect all our laws or constitutional restraints to power. A big risk in 2004.

[Jerseygirltoo]

19. No way!

I believe you mean well, but don't you think all this talk about postponing elections motivates possible terrorists to aim for that goal? The message should be, we are having our election come hell or high water. If any sort of disaster occurs on Election Day, either manmade or natural, voters from those specific polling places that are affected should be given an opportunity to send in absentee ballots. I'd rather just delay knowing the final result, than postpone the whole election.

[Snoggera]

23. Unless I am shot on the way to the voting booth

I intend to vote.

There is no reason to delay, postpone or cancel. None.

Just the fact that this is being seriously discussed shows the power of manipulation.

[Dookus]

24. if millions of people are unable to get the polls

I think that IS a reason to delay the election.

Regardless of when the election is held, Bush's term ends on January 20th.

[Speed8098]

25. Never

All this talk about terrorism delaying the election is bullsh*t.

A federal election should NEVER EVER be postponed.

If we let fear rule our lives, we lose.

To give up freedom to ensure security is criminal.

Freedom is risky, the founding fathers knew that. Thats why they wrote the constitution the way they did.

[shockingelk]

28. It's not a matter of fear ruling our lives

It's a matter of addressing the possibility of an entire geographic location being disenfranchised.

[Dookus]

30. so you're OK

if millions are unable to vote?

[TexasSissy]

32. First, your information is faulty. The WH proposal is to ask Congress

to give the U.S. ELECTIONS COMMISSION (not the White House) sole authority to delay elections.

U.S. Elections Commission - a commission first set up by * after the 2000 election, to deal with such problems.

Chairman of U.S. Elections Commission - a * appointee, who is also a very religious person who has run some of the faith-based * initiatives (he's also a pastor or former pastor).

But as far as delaying the national election: As Rumsfeld said, "Democracy is untidy." It is untidy and perhaps messy to have elections after a terrorist attack. But that is part of Democracy.

To give one commission, or one person, sole authority to delay elections is to invite abuse. It's just too dangerous in a democracy to concentrate such power into one small body or one person. And I would say that whether the Republicans OR the Democrats are in power. It's just too dangerous. Nothing should prevent the election from going forward in the places not affected by a terrorist hit. That's the way it was handled during the Civil War.