# Should elections be delayed after a terrorist attack? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2004, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831 "2004-03-17T11:23:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/1 "2004-03-17T11:23:18Z")
I don’t mean indefinately, but perhaps for a week or so. Purely to give the electorate some time to deal with their shock/horror/grief. On the other hand, would the terrorists see a delayed election as a victory of sorts? ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/2 "2004-03-17T11:52:37Z")
No. Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/3 "2004-03-17T13:06:12Z")
Another problem would authorities claiming that the security aspect requires delaying the election for longer periods and eventually you have a police state. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/4 "2004-03-17T13:40:52Z")
The problem is, absent terrorists revealing their playbook to us, they can claim any result as a victory. For example, if they attacked just before the US elections: Bush wins: The terrorists win. Bush will continue his policies that will further alienate the Muslim world, and ironically give terrorist organizations exactly what they asked for. Kerry wins: The terrorists win. The US will slow the Bush-era agression and withdraw from the Muslim world. Elections delayed: The terrorists win. The US is so scared that the most sacred institution of democracy is put on hold so they can recover, the pansies. Eventually they’ll vote, and see above. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/5 "2004-03-17T13:47:39Z")
I think Rashak is right. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/6 "2004-03-17T14:08:43Z")
In general, I don’t like the idea of delaying an election, but at the same time I’d be more concerned about terrorists affecting the outcome of an election than it’s timing. Still, I’d have to say the show must go on. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/7 "2004-03-17T14:28:27Z")
Depending on the event, grief and irrationality can persist for a _long_ time. It’s two years on and much of America is still in shock over the events of 9/11. What criteria shall we use to determine when it’s OK to resume the normal electoral process? Who would get to decide that? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/8 "2004-03-17T14:41:04Z")
[Fear of terrorism’s no excuse to go wobbly on democracy…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4648872&highlight=democracy#post4648872) ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/9 "2004-03-17T15:53:07Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > [Fear of terrorism’s no excuse to go wobbly on democracy…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4648872&highlight=democracy#post4648872) I’m not suggesting we “go wobbly on democracy”, I’m just wondering if democracy is best served by an electorate that is likely, IMO, to be in a shocked and emotive state. Surely if a goddamn sporting event (Ryder Cup) can be cancelled ( **not** postponed) an election could be put back a while? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/10 "2004-03-17T16:12:26Z")
> [@legion](#): > > Surely if a goddamn sporting event (Ryder Cup) can be cancelled ( **not** postponed) an election could be put back a while? The logic here is escaping me. Why should the decision to hold or cancel a sporting event have any bearing on whether to hold an election? Unless there was an immediate risk of death or injury, the elections should be held as scheduled. Sporting events aren’t held to nearly as high a standard. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/11 "2004-03-17T16:12:56Z")
> [@legion](#): > > I’m not suggesting we “go wobbly on democracy”, I’m just wondering if democracy is best served by an electorate that is likely, IMO, to be in a shocked and emotive state. Surely if a goddamn sporting event (Ryder Cup) can be cancelled ( **not** postponed) an election could be put back a while? This seems to imply that the sporting event is a more signifigant activity than voting. Which is an unfortunate position for one to take. \*_Why should a terrorist groups be provided with even greater \* influence over an electorate’s primary sovereignty over its government?_ It’s an idea that creates greater incentive for terrorist activities. Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea. **Liberty is more valuable than Life.** That’s why we trade lives for Liberty over and over again. It’s a trade worth making, (when necessary). The answer’s, "No, terrorist activities should not be given the power to delay the the electorates ability to give their consent to be governed. If terrorit activities were given the power to delay the the electorates ability to give their consent to be governed, where would one draw the lines? How large of a terrorist event would it take to qualify? How many times could a vote be postponed? Could a terrorist group perpetually postpone an electorate’s primary sovereignty over its government? ---
**Author:** ![Edward\_The\_Head](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Edward\_The\_Head](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Edward_The_Head)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/12 "2004-03-17T16:56:22Z")
> [@legion](#): > > I’m not suggesting we “go wobbly on democracy”, I’m just wondering if democracy is best served by an electorate that is likely, IMO, to be in a shocked and emotive state. Surely if a goddamn sporting event (Ryder Cup) can be cancelled ( **not** postponed) an election could be put back a while? Well to the best of my knowledge the Ryder Cup was **not** cancelled, they pushed it back by a year. I believe, but right now can not find anything to back it up, they even used the same people that were supposed to play. As for postponing an election, not unless there was a major event, and I mean even bigger then 9/11. But only enough time to regroup. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/13 "2004-03-17T16:59:35Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > This seems to imply that the sporting event is a more signifigant activity than voting. Which is an unfortunate position for one to take. I didn’t mean to imply that at all, quite the opposite actually. If I remember correctly, the Ryder cup was cancelled in 2001 because, in part, the American players were still in a state of shock after 9/11. No charges of caving in to terrorism, just a natural wish to allow these player time to get their heads together. So, I’m curious as to how we can give our sportsmen time and space, but we cannot allow the electorate the same courtesy. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/14 "2004-03-17T17:05:30Z")
Because the sporting event is not urgent or a priority. You can take your time doing something when it’s not important. Although if somebody will refresh my memory, there were elections on September 11, 2001 that had to be made up later, weren’t there? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/15 "2004-03-17T17:10:28Z")
> [@Edward The Head](#): > > Well to the best of my knowledge the Ryder Cup was **not** cancelled, they pushed it back by a year. I believe, but right now can not find anything to back it up, they even used the same people that were supposed to play. The Ryder cup that year would have required US players to fly to Europe, and not enough of the good players were willing to do that at the time. No oint in having the tournament w/o the appropriate players. If the terror attack so damaged the infrastructure, that people could not vote, then it would make sense to delay the election. But not if it’s just to let emotions cool. Like **Rashak** said above, the potential for abuse by incumbent politicians is too dangerous. Should we delay the elction if the Dow drops more than x% in the weeks before an election? Of course not. And the same applies to a terror attack. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/16 "2004-03-17T17:18:37Z")
It would be even \*more \* critical to proceed per schedule, to show the people as well as the terrorists that we’re stronger than they are, that our institutions are strong and undamaged, and that they can have no real effect on us. The US had a presidential election right on time during the Civil War, for pity’s sake. If that wasn’t enough to force a delay, what would be? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/17 "2004-03-17T17:22:10Z")
> [@legion](#): > > So, I’m curious as to how we can give our sportsmen time and space, but we cannot allow the electorate the same courtesy. Voting is more important than sports events. There’re somethings that must be done even when it is difficult to do them. Voting is one of those things. A comparison between the two types of events, a sporting event and elections, is not well justified in this instance. One is a recreation, and the other is a vital obligation. Rules or laws that’d delay voting would codify terrorism’s ability to impact the democratic process. Terrorism’s ability to impact the democratic process should not be sanctioned, especially not through codification in rules or laws. The reasons why terrorism’s ability to impact the democratic process should not be sanctioned are, in part, as follows: Terrorist groups would be provided with even greater influence over an electorate’s primary sovereignty over its government. This would provide greater incentive for terrorist activities. Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea. Liberty is more valuable than Life. That’s why we trade lives for Liberty over and over again. It’s a trade worth making, (when necessary). Terrorist activities should not be given the power to delay the the electorate’s ability to give their consent to be governed. If terrorist activities were given the power to delay the the electorate’s ability to give their consent to be governed, where would one draw the lines? How large of a terrorist event would it take to qualify? How many times could a vote be postponed? Could a terrorist group perpetually postpone an electorate’s primary sovereignty over its government? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/18 "2004-03-17T17:31:41Z")
In theory, I agree that we shouldn’t let terrorists dictate the election schedule. However, I think that might be the lesser of two evils. If I had to choose between having an election delayed by two weeks so that the country can come to grips with an extraordinary event (like a huge terrorist attack or say a 10.0 earthquake in Los Angeles) OR having to live with a government chosen in the heat of the moment, I think I’d rather have a two week delay. My plan is to set up a committee before each election- the Chief Justice, the President, the majority and minority leaders of both houses of Congress, and a governor from each party. If those eight people can unanimously agree that a two week delay is appropriate, so be it. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/19 "2004-03-17T17:53:08Z")
**BobLibDem** , Your plan is unconstitutional. It takes an act of Congress to change election day. If Congress gets together and changes election day, then so be it. ---
**Author:** ![legion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@legion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legion)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2004, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/20 "2004-03-17T18:56:01Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Voting is more important than sports events. > There’re somethings that must be done even when it is difficult to do them. Voting is one of those things. > A comparison between the two types of events, a sporting event and elections, is not well justified in this instance. > One is a recreation, and the other is a vital obligation. I agree. It really would not have mattered that much if the American golfers played. What’s the worse thing that could happen? They lose. But an election held just days after a major terrorist event? What’s the worst that could happen? IMO you might get an emotive, knee jerk result. A result that may be bitterly regretted for the next 4 years. > [@SimonX](#): > > If terrorist activities were given the power to delay the the electorate’s ability to give their consent to be governed, where would one draw the lines? > How large of a terrorist event would it take to qualify? > How many times could a vote be postponed? Could a terrorist group perpetually postpone an electorate’s primary sovereignty over its government? Mere details and certainly not insurmountable to resolve, if we were to agree, in principle, that a postponement should not be impossible. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831.md?page=2)