The Republican-controlled state governments of Utah and Missouri have announced that they will not support the conduction of primary elections for the next cycle, citing budgetary concerns. Parties in those states who wish to conduct primary elections will have to muster the resources themselves. Several others are considering similar measures.
Let’s play pretend:
It’s January 2004, and President Shrub has announced that due to increasing budget shortfalls brought on by continuing American involvement in overseas conflicts, we can not afford the expenditure of running national elections, and the potential political instability and distraction of the president’s and congress’s attention toward campaign concerns would be bad for the nation.
The 2004 national elections are therefore cancelled. the existing government will remain in power in the best interests of the country.
Never mind how likely you think this scenario is, this just a hypothetical.
I would immediately donate $10 billion of my personal fortune to fund the election efforts across the country and restore democracy in the land, much like the heralded J.P. Morgan’s intervention to save the U.S. Treasury.
Never mind how likely you think my answer is, since your question is just a hypothetical.
I’m sorry, you’ll have to do better… Can’t you get Halliburton and the WTO/globalization conspiracy involved somehow?
I suspect the Supreme Court might have something to say on this matter, or are they in on this “banana Republican” plot too?
The constitutionality of this scenario is pretty dubious. I suppose the House and Senate elections are cancelled on account of reign as well? State, county, local elections as well?
scotandrsn, the problem with postulating a highly unlikely scenario is twofold: first, you lose a lot of the right to say “Serious, what would you do?” Secondly, the more ad-hoc assumptions that are necessary to support your unlikely scenario, the more difficult it is to postulate a reasonable answer.
But since you ask, I believe that any such announcement would be treated with derision and scorn. The elections are conducted by the states, not the federal government. The President has no more authority to cancel an election than he does to change a state’s motto. The announcement would thus be treated as a nullity, the scheduled elections would proceed perforce, and the electoral delegates from each state would meet to elect the President. The President-elect would appear in Washington on january 20th, take the oath of office, and thus become the 44th President of the United States.
Someone asks you, on September 1, 2001, how you would feel if, in the next few weeks, middle eastern terrorists sent 12 hijacked passenger jets into national landmarks in New York, Washington, and Chicago, set off suitcase-sized nukes in St. Louis, Dallas, and San Francisco, unleashed a massively deadly bio attack in 5 other cities, and invaded Seattle.
You might play along just for shits and grins. Might.
Play with me now.
Your reaction to the cancellation of the national 2004 elections?
To ask how the hell you got from “political parties have to cough up their own funds to conduct primary campaigns” to cancelling elections.
And also to send cyber-kudoes to vanilla for her response.
All seriousness aside, if this is what the Left thinks is possible in the US, it is further evidence that they have lost contact, not simply with the American middle, but with reality as a whole. What exactly are they smoking? Bush’s party won the 2002 elections rather handily, and he is currently riding high in the polls as the result of the overwhelming success of the Iraq war. Why on earth would he cancel elections?
We had elections throughout the Civil War, and two world wars. Any politician who suggested cancelling the 2004 elections for any reason would be in jail before nightfall.
Exaggeration for political effect is one thing. This verges beyond into paranoid delusion, and any party who suggested it as a serious danger would rightly be seen as lunatics.
If you cry “Wolf!” enough, don’t be surprised if you are pegged as suffering from an irrational fear of chihuahuas.
I would open up my funds for both parties, succeed as the highest bidder for their loyalties, and thus dictate terms to US policy over the following decade.
Hm, wait a mo - don’t think I’ll get very far with that for £40.37 and a pocket full of fluff.
Seriously? I am sorry. I couldn’t tell from your OP that you were serious.
I would become the self appointed leader of a super secret underground movement. We would live and meet in the sewers of big cities to plot overthrowing the government and installing Angelina Jolie as Empress of the 49 States of the United States of America. (49 states because out of gratitude for my dedicated service Empress Jolie gave me New Mexico to rule.)
As I explained above, elections are conducted BY THE STATES.
BY THE STATES.
So the President cannot cancel elections.
But because you seem eager to go beyond this, let’s play.
If ALL FIFTY STATES cancel presidential elections, I would be outraged. I would join with other like-minded persons, and attempt to reverse the decision. I would, with my compatriots, visit the governor and urge him to take our concerns seriously. I would call each and every county in Virginia, and demand that they ignore the governor’s order and proceed with elections as planned.
Does that finally answer you? Or do wish to further suppose that the governor has ordered National Guard troops to confiscate and secure the voting machines, and arrest those who would try to conduct the election anyway?
Then I would arm myself (being a gun owner) and hie myself and my family to our property in the hills of West Virginia, after first buying as much non-perishable foodstuffs as we could get our hands on. I’d also purchase a satellite dish and satellite phone; this would hopefully give me internet and voice connectivity while hiding. If the destruction of the social order continued, I’d make my family as secure and safe as possible. If the opportunity presented itself, I would try to contact others who felt as I do, and go about guerilla operations in an effort to unseat the newly-ensconced military dictator of my state.
This thread is just for play. Didn’t mean to get everyone’s panties in a bunch by bringing partisanship into it.
Just trying to make it more interesting.
My bad.
If it helps, I’ll generalize it:
An elected official up for re-election who has direct control of polling procedures your voting district announces, citing moderately compelling reasons, that the democratic process must be suspended in favor of the broader interests of the community.
Remember, we’re just playing “Think about the unthinkable” here.
What is your PERSONAL reaction? What do you think? what action do you take?
ESPECIALLY if the official is someone you currently support?
Bush would not attempt the italicized term, because the Constitutionalists among his own party – e.g., Orrin Hatch – would be advising him that such a step would lead to widespread protests and result in his immediate impeachment and conviction.
So assuming the rest of your scenario: there are protests from outraged Democrats and from the majority of Americans who regard the right to vote as important. Notably, the idea that “we can give tax cuts to the rich, but cannot even afford to conduct an election” becomes a big cry.
States scrape together enough money to conduct their own elections, which will include everything but President and Vice President. Some states conduct elections for the latter – but not enough to provide anyone with an Electoral College majority.
At noon on January 20, 2005, Bush’s term ends, by law, as does Cheney’s. The Congress has convened on January 3, 2005, again as specified by law, and the House has proceeded to the election of a new President, and the Senate of a Vice-President, again as prescribed by law. One of two scenarios ensues: if they have not chosen a President by 1/20/05, then the Speaker of the House acts as President until they do. Naturally this will make him loath to proceed with the expeditious choice of a President. If they have made a choice, then whoever the House chooses is sworn in as President. It’s entirely plausible that the Democrats could win the House in the ensuing brouhaha about the cancellation of the Presidential elections, and choose the next President (either the Speaker or the man elected by the House). Note that the House’s choice is delimited to the three men who had the highest vote in the election – which means that the states who did conduct Presidential campaigns will effectively choose the President.)
An effort by House Republicans to extend Bush’s term is attacked as unconstitutional, and fails.
