# Postponing Election Day? We Laugh But The Government Considers It
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 11, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621 "2004-07-11T23:38:58Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/61 "2004-07-12T19:10:26Z")
> [@bughunter](#):
>
> Someone is not telling the truth. Either we are not safer, or there is no threat of disrupting the elections.
>
> And finally, why am I the one to point this out, and _not someone in the press?_
>
> Where the hell is the critical thinking in the press? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that this doesn’t make sense.
Or, you could simply be wrong.
Bush is arguing that he has \*\*reduced \*\* the threat of terror, not \*\*eliminated \*\* it. You can argue about whether or not he has actually reduced the threat, but it is certainly possible for us to be both safer, and yet still in danger.
If you take a dozen steps to eliminate fire dangers around your house, do you then cancel your fire insurance? No.
---
### Author:  [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/62 "2004-07-12T19:28:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I want the tin foil concession at the next DopeFest. … Some of you are taking the next step beyond distrust into paranoid delusions.
Well, I think a more accurate portrayal is that some of us are so entranced by the jingoism and mendacity of the Bush machine and its attendant press corps that they think that doubting the intent of those in power is paranoid and that personal attacks make for effective debate.
**Cluricaun** and **gobear** have succinctly listed, and backed up with cites, enough evidence of lies and abuses of power by the Bush administration to give us the right to express a little doubt as to thier motives.
So go ahead. Hurl personal attacks and accusations of paranoia at us. It only reveals who among us is _really_ deluded.
---
### Author:  [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/63 "2004-07-12T19:45:08Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> Bush is arguing that he has \*\*reduced \*\* the threat of terror, not \*\*eliminated \*\* it.
Oh, yes. He has done such a good job of reducing the threat of terror that we are now facing a disruption of our democratic process _for the first time in history_.
Tell me, are we safer now than we were before the 2002 midterm elections, when 9/11 was still fresh in everyone’s minds, and the threat of another attack was supposedly higher than ever? If so, then why do we even need to talk about postponing the 2004 elections?
Face it. It’s ludicrous. The Bush Machine is talking out of both of its two faces at once.
---
### Author:  [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/64 "2004-07-12T19:53:07Z")
> [@Master Wang-Ka](#):
>
> I can’t put it any better than that. Certainly, if 9/11 had been right before a Presidential election, then perhaps postponing that election might have been advisable.
>
> On the other hand, leaving the details to the administration that stole the last election seems inadvisable at best, insane at worst.
The current administration wouldn’t win either way. Here’s why;
1. If there were a major attack the day before the next election the current admin would be blamed for not stopping it, or worse yet, be blamed for ‘setting it up’.
2. If they postponed the election due to a ‘day before terrorist event’ they would catch flak from the left for allowing it to change the normal outcome of the election had it happened within the natural timeframe, ex., (On the other hand, leaving the details to the administration that stole the last election seems inadvisable at best, insane at worst)
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/65 "2004-07-12T20:13:33Z")
> [@bughunter](#):
>
> Oh, yes. He has done such a good job of reducing the threat of terror that we are now facing a disruption of our democratic process _for the first time in history_.
>
> Tell me, are we safer now than we were before the 2002 midterm elections, when 9/11 was still fresh in everyone’s minds, and the threat of another attack was supposedly higher than ever? If so, then why do we even need to talk about postponing the 2004 elections?
>
> Face it. It’s ludicrous. The Bush Machine is talking out of both of its two faces at once.
I never said he was doing a good job. I just said that is not logically inconsistent for us to be both safer and still in danger.
As for being upset about Bush’s latest proclamation, what do you actually expect him to say? Has any president at any time ever said during his tenure that his policies have made the country less safe? Ain’t gonna happen, pal…
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/66 "2004-07-12T20:15:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I want the tin foil concession at the next DopeFest.
>
> The Bush administration is conspiring to cancel the next elections in the same sense that someone who buys fire insurance is conspiring to commit arson. Planning to deal with the consequences of a dreaded event is rather different from planning to bring the event about.
>
> Some of you are taking the next step beyond distrust into paranoid delusions.
>
> If the elections are cancelled, I hereby promise to renounce my membership in the Republican party, donate a thousand dollars to the Democrats, and dance the Watusi naked with “Impeach Bush” painted on my ass.
>
> And I can bump this thread after the elections and post a big, fat “neener neener” when your paranoid fantasies turn out to be ridiculous.
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
The Johnson Administration Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The Nixon administration lied about Watergate.
Ford probably lied when he said “there was no deal.”
The Reagan Administration lied about Iran-Contra.
Bush Senior Lied about Iran-Contra.
Clinton, as the pubbies love to point out, lied about Monica, though I don’t think this rates with the other lies, quite frankly.
Bush Junior lied about WMDs.
Since just prior to my birth up to the present, we’ve seen significant and at times extrememly damaging mendacity on the part of at least five out of eight presidents. I have very little reason to think that, if given the opportunity, the current president or one of the next, will not try to use any opportunity available to manipulate an election in their favor. Having a ready mechanism to delay elections nationwide because of unspecified terrorist threats provides a legal and convenient mechanism for a president and/or his administration to try to rig elections. I don’t think, given the presidential track record over the past 40 or so years, that it is at paranoid to have deep misgivings about the current move to delay elections if deemed “necessary”.
Given the sorry state of our internal and international intelligence, the obvious effect political pressure has on the quality of threat assessment, and the historically-proven propensity for mendacity displayed by your average president, I think, quite frankly, that _you_ are deluded for trusting our government to do the right thing with the power to delay elections, and especially deluded to trust the current administration.
---
### Author:  [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/67 "2004-07-12T20:18:57Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> I think the problem is this: Suppose there is a terror attack in Florida, and the election there is postponed. The rest of the country votes as scheduled, and Bush wins. Florida then votes, and Bush wins there also. Or, flip it and say Kerry wins on both fronts. We already have issues with people not voting because the media calls the election early. Wouldn’t there be issues of “equal protection” or other concerns about fairness? Do we really need 4 more years of a contested election?
I don’t see an equal protection issue; everyone in Florida still gets the same right to vote. Hawaiians routinely don’t bother voting because the election is almost always called before their polls close (Hawaiian polls close at 2am Eastern, IIRC). Nobody seriously claims that this deprives Hawaiians of equal protection. (Admittedly, the fact that Hawaii only has four electoral votes may play into this somewhat.)
Special elections represent a less-than-ideal solution at times, but I think the prospect of special elections in a few districts is much less problematic for the country than that of postponing the entire general election. And I think handing political appointees the power to suspend elections across the entire country is, quite simply, insane. Especially if that power also goes to suspending the **state** elections that will take place on November 2nd in nearly every state. People are going to be voting for more than just President on November 2nd, and many of those races aren’t federal questions at all. If the federal government postpones its elections but states go through with theirs, who will pay the cost of the special election when the federal government eventually gets around to having one for the federal races? Why should North Dakota have to pay for a special election because someone blew up a polling place in Florida? Should a village in Vermont have to wait an extra month to decide whether to raise taxes to pay to keep the high school running, just because somebody blew up a polling place in New Mexico? Keep in mind that the states bear the cost of holding the elections; the federal government does not.
Finally, a policy of a national postponement for spot terrorist activity merely encourages terrorism. With such a policy, all a terrorist group has to do to throw our national political system into complete turmoil is a terrorist attack on the least significant of targets. Blow up one polling place in Butte, Wyoming and the entire electoral machine grinds to a halt, over a state with only three electoral votes that we’ve all known were going to go to Bush since January of 2001. Why are we making it easier for the terrorists?
No, I think this is mainly just the Administration seeking to “raise the terror level”, as they’ve done many times since 9/11.
---
### Author:  [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/68 "2004-07-12T20:36:38Z")
> [@Abraham Lincoln](#):
>
> It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence in great emergencies.
>
> On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and partially paralyzed, by a political war among themselves?
>
> But the election was a necessity.
>
> We cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us.
Relevant? You decide.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/69 "2004-07-12T20:49:03Z")
> [@KellyM](#):
>
> I don’t see an equal protection issue; everyone in Florida still gets the same right to vote. Hawaiians routinely don’t bother voting because the election is almost always called before their polls close (Hawaiian polls close at 2am Eastern, IIRC). Nobody seriously claims that this deprives Hawaiians of equal protection. (Admittedly, the fact that Hawaii only has four electoral votes may play into this somewhat.)
But isn’t it different if the polls in one place \*\*don’t even open \*\* until after the polls in the majority of the nation are closed? Is there any precident for having an election in that manner?
> [@](#):
>
> Special elections represent a less-than-ideal solution at times, but I think the prospect of special elections in a few districts is much less problematic for the country than that of postponing the entire general election. And I think handing political appointees the power to suspend elections across the entire country is, quite simply, insane. Especially if that power also goes to suspending the **state** elections that will take place on November 2nd in nearly every state.
First, I do agree that this authority should be reserved for Congress and not given to a political appointee of the administration.
And the logistics are daunting, for sure. In the end, it needs to be up to the states. What I wonder is, if any state would want to sign up for a system that would result in that state having to postpone federal elections while the rest of the country carries on as usual. I doubt it.
> [@](#):
>
> People are going to be voting for more than just President on November 2nd, and many of those races aren’t federal questions at all. If the federal government postpones its elections but states go through with theirs, who will pay the cost of the special election when the federal government eventually gets around to having one for the federal races? Why should North Dakota have to pay for a special election because someone blew up a polling place in Florida? Should a village in Vermont have to wait an extra month to decide whether to raise taxes to pay to keep the high school running, just because somebody blew up a polling place in New Mexico? Keep in mind that the states bear the cost of holding the elections; the federal government does not.
I don’t think it makes sense to split the elections. And I don’t see that there would be a scenario that would require more than one week’s delay. Our system should be able to absorb that delay w/o any adverse effects.
> [@](#):
>
> Finally, a policy of a national postponement for spot terrorist activity merely encourages terrorism. With such a policy, all a terrorist group has to do to throw our national political system into complete turmoil is a terrorist attack on the least significant of targets. Blow up one polling place in Butte, Wyoming and the entire electoral machine grinds to a halt, over a state with only three electoral votes that we’ve all known were going to go to Bush since January of 2001. Why are we making it easier for the terrorists?
Butte is in Montana, but I get your point. 🙂 We’d certainly have to have some minimum threshold of damage for it to make sense to delay the election, and it would have to be during or immediately before the election. I’m sure that there are small problems with certain polling locations in EVERY election. But another 9/11 type attack that essentially shut down the city of NY is a whole different ball of wax. And surely one cannot argue that having a contingency plan for terror attacks plays into the hands of terrorists.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/70 "2004-07-12T21:01:41Z")
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> The Johnson Administration Lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
> The Nixon administration lied about Watergate.
> Ford probably lied when he said “there was no deal.”
> The Reagan Administration lied about Iran-Contra.
> Bush Senior Lied about Iran-Contra.
> Clinton, as the pubbies love to point out, lied about Monica, though I don’t think this rates with the other lies, quite frankly.
> Bush Junior lied about WMDs.
Several of which are problematic, and none of which have anything to do with cancelling elections.
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> I have very little reason to think that, if given the opportunity, the current president or one of the next, will not try to use any opportunity available to manipulate an election in their favor.
The trouble is that there is no indication that the current President is going to do anything of the sort. What we have is a bunch of dark accusations from the Usual Suspects, who are capable of talking themselves and each other into believing **anything** about Bush. Almost literally anything at all, including paranoid fantasies like a fascist take over of the US. This is the moral equivalent of The Turner Diaries as written by the less rational members of the Left.
> [@Loopydude](#):
>
> Having a ready mechanism to delay elections nationwide because of unspecified terrorist threats provides a legal and convenient mechanism for a president and/or his administration to try to rig elections.
Which is a rather whopping misstatement of the subject of the OP. Since the legislation being discussed is not ready, is not based on unspecified threats (but rather a major terrorist incident), is neither legal (so far) nor convenient, and gives no opportunity to rig elections not already available.
By all means continue with the paranoid fantasies, if you like. But quite frankly, this is the sort of thing that shows how far out of touch liberals can get when they reinforce each other’s delusions.
You need conservatives to mock you when you start posting this kind of foolishness. Otherwise the Bush-hating 80% of the SDMB nods its head and agrees sagely with each other about something that is head-snappingly idiotic.
You are letting your anti-Bush obsessions get the better of you.
The elections are not going to be cancelled. The voices are not out to get you. OJ did it. Oswald acted alone. The flying saucers are not coming to pick up the Raelians, and if delusional thoughts made you cut off your balls or your credibility, you are going to wind up looking stupid.
You people need to get a grip here.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/71 "2004-07-12T21:13:00Z")
> [@squeegee](#):
>
> I don’t have a fundamental problem with the notion of having a “plan b” in case some big nasty thing happens on or close to election day.
>
> I just don’t trust this administration to create or administer such a plan.
I could accept such a plan only with a strong safeguard (i.e. all incumbents are ineligible to run in a postponed election) against use for any but a genuine emergency.
---
### Author:  [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/72 "2004-07-12T21:25:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> By all means continue with the paranoid fantasies, if you like. But quite frankly, this is the sort of thing that shows how far out of touch liberals can get when they reinforce each other’s delusions.
>
> You need conservatives to mock you when you start posting this kind of foolishness. Otherwise the Bush-hating 80% of the SDMB nods its head and agrees sagely with each other about something that is head-snappingly idiotic.
>
> You are letting your anti-Bush obsessions get the better of you.
>
> The elections are not going to be cancelled. The voices are not out to get you. OJ did it. Oswald acted alone. The flying saucers are not coming to pick up the Raelians, and if delusional thoughts made you cut off your balls or your credibility, you are going to wind up looking stupid.
>
> You people need to get a grip here.
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Don’t be an insulting ass. Take it to the pit, if you like to behave that way. If you read my post carefully, you’d see I don’t limit my suspicions to Bush. Any president from any party is fair game for suspicion of corruption, as far as I’m concerned.
Again, I see nothing paranoid about suspecting that legalizing electoral delay would lead to abuses. I was under the impression that the current push for legislation includes threat contingencies as well as actual attack contigencies, despite what the OP mentions. At any rate, delaying the election after an actual attack is still unwise, especially given the fact that the current administration appears to be afraid of a repeat of what happened in Spain. All I see here is an attempt to distract; the Bush administration seems to be in fear of an attack just prior to an election. The underlying reasoning seems to be that if elections proceed according to schedule, Americans will blame Bush, and vote him out. Look at how partisan support or opposition to the proposed delay is. Dem’s don’t like it, Pub’s do, seemingly across the board. The most significant player in this game appears to be partisan politics, not concerns about preserving the integrity of our democracy or whatever other rhetoric they choose to obfuscate the real issues with. Both parties argue with partisan motivation behind their support or opposition, so I naturally am deeply suspicious of the whole thing.
Partisanship is the very thing I would hope to keep out of the issue. The voters will do what they will do; the Feds. should not try to manipulate that. While I don’t trust the Dems support the approach I prefer for the right reasons, we are in agreement at least on the details: We vote on Nov. 2nd, no matter what. If there are unavoidable local delays (e.g. somebody nukes a ballot box, necessitating a recount), so be it, but on the National scale, the show absolutely must go on.
---
### Author:  [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/73 "2004-07-12T21:37:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> But isn’t it different if the polls in one place \*\*don’t even open \*\* until after the polls in the majority of the nation are closed? Is there any precident for having an election in that manner?
Quite a few countries hold multi-day elections, and they seem to manage just fine. I don’t think this presents a serious challenge to fairness. Note also that current law allows a state to choose to hold its election, even for national office, on a date other than the federally specified one, within certain limits.
> [@](#):
>
> First, I do agree that this authority should be reserved for Congress and not given to a political appointee of the administration.
I think it’s pretty clear that Congress already has the power to reschedule elections without any further lawmaking, since Congress has the power to set the date of elections in the first place. The Administration’s proposal is, I believe, to grant a committtee of federal election commissioners that power.
> [@](#):
>
> And I don’t see that there would be a scenario that would require more than one week’s delay. Our system should be able to absorb that delay w/o any adverse effects.
The Administration is specifically concerned with the fact that under current law, a postponement would be limited to at most three or four weeks. Apparently, they want to be able to postpone for a longer time.
What I really think is going on here is the Administration wants to be able to abort the election if a terrorist attack does occur just beforehand, in order to avoid being swept from power (which is what would likely happen; see also Spain). They’re also trying to raise the terror level so people are more scared. Current polling indicates that the more scared the electorate is, the more likely they are to vote for Republicans. So I consider this to be an entirely political move. Note especially how knowledge of the “discussion” between Homeland Security and Justice was leaked, and that Justice initially denied that it had taken place.
---
### Author:  [@bughunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bughunter)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/74 "2004-07-12T22:07:40Z")
While I’m not disagreeing _per se_ **Kelly** , I think that specifically, the Bush folks are trying to gradually introduce us to the concept of a “delayed election” and, more specifically, germinating support among the loyal and faithful. So, when October and November roll around, and they get a chance, any chance, to panic the nation and push for a delay of the elections, they will have their army of supporters all on the same page.
I was wondering when they were going to trot this idea out. My only suprise was that it was so soon.
But then again, Rove and his machiavellian posse have been bungling things pretty good as of late. Perhaps they’ve become so insulated from reality that their political algorithms are starting to go divergent.
---
### Author:  [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/75 "2004-07-12T22:17:03Z")
> [@Rufus Xavier](#):
>
> What if the hypothetical terrorist attack in question killed some or most of the candidates for election?
[What if the U.S. president and vice president-elect die before being sworn in?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_133.html)
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/76 "2004-07-12T22:19:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#):
>
> If necessary, it would seem reasonable to postpone it by exactly one week-- we have a long tradition of holding elections on Tuesdays.
Dumb custom. We’d get higher voter turnout if we voted over the weekend. Or simply made a election day a national holiday, which it is, in some countries.
---
### Author:  [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/77 "2004-07-12T22:21:47Z")
> [@KellyM](#):
>
> The Administration is specifically concerned with the fact that under current law, a postponement would be limited to at most three or four weeks. Apparently, they want to be able to postpone for a longer time.
Got a cite for that? I was under the impression that, under current laws, national elections cannot be suspended or postponed short of martial law. Where did you read something to the contrary, or that the administration is seeking a longer delay?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/78 "2004-07-12T22:30:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Dumb custom. We’d get higher voter turnout if we voted over the weekend. Or simply made a election day a national holiday, which it is, in some countries.
How do you know we’d get better turnout on the weekend? I don’t see it.
Between Muslims, Jews, and Christians, you’d have issues with Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. It wouldn’t be worth the hassle.
Voting is so easy, I see no need to pander to anyone who is simply too lazy to go to the polls, or who otherwise cannot be bothered to vote by mail.
---
### Author:  [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/79 "2004-07-12T22:30:32Z")
Reason for allowing a postponment, very simple:
Terrorist org ‘A’ would like to see the US elect canidate ‘B’.
Terrorist Group ‘A’ on election day destroy polling places where the voters will most likely vote for canidate ‘A’, the results of the votes is these places are lost and not counted.
Due to the actions of Terrorist org ‘A’, canidate ‘B’ wins. This will just be a sign to the terrorists all over the world (‘A’-‘Z’) that terrorsim works, and there goes the world as we know it.
Allowing areas that polling places were destroyed to rebuild and revote will elimate this possibility.
---
### Author:  [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)
#### Post date: [July 12, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621/80 "2004-07-12T22:38:54Z")
> [@kanicbird](#):
>
> Due to the actions of Terrorist org ‘A’, canidate ‘B’ wins.
Nonsense. Due to the actions of voters, candidate A or B will win. Voters aren’t children, how dare anyone treat them that way.
You’re one of those Big Goverment Liberals, aren’t you? 😛
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/postponing-election-day-we-laugh-but-the-government-considers-it/254621.md?page=5)