I’m deeply, deeply suspicious of this idea. Too many possibilities for abuse. I would only consider supporting such a law if:
A) the law limits use of such delay to overt terrorist acts; ie actually blowing up polling places or assassinating people. None of this “credible information” or “heightened state of alert” bullshit.
B) the delay is short. One week, max.
and
C) There is no possibility of extending the delay.
This last one is very important. If there is a way to delay the election for a long time, or indefinitely, then some administration will do it.
lol. What a pleasantly naive viewpoint! I hope you were being sarcastic. You’re right, though. voters aren’t children. They’re sheep.
My #1 primary fear right now is a terrorist attack before the election that makes everyone go into that state of selective thought where we think Bush is actually smart just long enough for him to win. In the event of a terrorist attack near election day, I actually think that delaying the election LESSENS the kneejerk response vote - instead of running like scared sheep to Bush, more people will come back to their senses and vote for who they really want to vote for.
Please consider all the possibilities. What if the terrorists fail to cooperate? What if Bush gets this emergency legislation through Congress, but then there is no successful terrorist attack on American soil in October or November? After all, they haven’t managed to pull one off here since 2001.
Personally, I could go either way. Assuming we’re talking about a few days or, at most, a week, I don’t see it as a big issue; but there should obviously be a very firm, fixed limit on it.
Here’s what I am lock-solid sure of, though:
If there is a terrorist attack(s), whether there is a delay or not, some voting places will be moved, and there will be some confusion, perhaps even fear and panic, and for some reason some people will not get to the right voting place and not vote. Also, in all the confusion some votes will be uncounted, or lost, or counted twice.
After the election, the (losing party) will be out in force insisting that the disruptions occured in disproportionally (losing party) areas, and that (losing candidate) would have taken (key state) except for their people being “disenfranchised.”* Moreover, the (losing party) say that the election was obviously tainted by the terrorist attacks, and that people only voted for (winner) in a moment of fear and weakness.
Therefore, it’s obvious that (winner) was not elected, but “selected” by the terrorists. (winner) is illegitimate and “not my president” because “he’s the guy Osama bin Laden wanted to win.” :rolleyes:
Till the day I die, this word will be forever associated for me with the commercials running on TV in Florida in late November 2000: “Have YOU been disenfranchised? Call 1-800-blah-blah now!” Exact same look and feel as the “Have you been injured?” Lawyers.
Okay, I got tired of reading and I’m just going to post.
Remember that this is the administration that grounded the General Aviation fleet for months. Not quite so long in some parts of the country, but the skies above Los Angeles were eerily quiet. Even if there was a good reason to ground people for a day ot two, there was no reason for it to have been stretched out for so long. And while no serious damage had ever been caused by a Cessna, rental trucks that did cause hundreds of deaths were not stopped form being on the roads.
So we have an administration that reacts in a knee-jerk way to little airplanes, then keeps the pilots grounded indefinitely. And we’re supposed to trust them to have the elections within a reasonable amount of time? What would they consider “reasonable”? A week? Two weeks? A year?
In the immortal words of Mr. Horse: “No sir, I don’t like it.”
It’s interesting: I say I don’t support election delay, and I’m called a knee-jerk Bush hating tinfoil-hat-wearing paranoiac. Yet I honestly don’t know if Bush would be hurt or helped by an electoral delay. I suspect the Bush administration and the Republican Party in general support the idea because they’re looking at the precedent in Spain. We see there that terrorist attacks can certainly affect electoral outcomes.
But I have no way of knowing if the US would respond the same way. I never asserted that I knew electoral delay would hurt or help a candidate. I merely stated that there was abuse potential, and that such abuse potential is going to bad for the voter. If there’s abuse, it should be self-evident that it’s bad, regardless of what politician profits from it. The fact that might backfire on or help Bush wasn’t the issue. The issue is “what is the potential for abuse, and is BushCo. being straight with us about why they want this”. Well, we know how straight BushCo. has been with us so far. And if there’s potential for abuse, the behavior of your average electoral official (Dem or Pub) would lead any reasonable person to want to nip the idea in the bud, because where there’s potential, there’s temptation, and where there’s temptation, there’s high probability.
Which is exactly why bringing it up for discussion now is a very sane idea: You can set a statutory time limit that everyone agrees on, or else you can set a firm regulation stating that it cannot be postponed no matter what.
I can’t imagine anything much short of an Armageddon event ought to delay a nationwide election.
And if a doomsday type of attack is carried out, won’t it be kind of obvious that we’ll have to put things on hold for a bit? I mean, do we need a special law for such an eventuality? I really don’t think so. The existing rules and regs. to deal with massive disasters should serve just fine. Nobody is going to raise a stink if Osama nukes NYC and LA, and we have to delay an election. Millions of dead, clouds of fallout covering thousands of square miles, massive numbers of wounded. We’d be on full wartime alert. Yes, then I think all will agree, it is probably impractical to count ballots at that juncture, and it might be necesary to put things on hold for a while. The Commander in Chief already has the vested power to deal with such an emergency appropriately. He doesn’t need more rights bestowed for the same problem. And if the problem isn’t that big, there’s no need for delay.
Well, I think the civil war pretty much settled the idea that you cannot reject the constitution once you are a part of it. So, the “suspending of the constitution” part would almost certainly be unconstitutional.
But I’m pretty sure that the plans refered to were contingincy plans incase of a huge disaster like WWIII or something. The article is talking about something like civil war.
