# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**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, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/21 "2004-03-17T19:27:35Z")
Let me begin by saying **Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea.** > [@legion](#): > > 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. Ummm… Every four years we _already_ run the risk of “an emotive, knee jerk result…that may be bitterly regretted for the next 4 years” w/o a terrorist attack. > [@legion](#): > > Mere details and certainly not insurmountable to resolve, if we were to agree, in principle, that a postponement should not be impossible. Inevitably, in legal matters, details are paramount rather than “mere.” **The insturments of democracy are too important to assign control over them to terrorists .** 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 exercise of sovereignty over its government. This would provide greater incentive for terrorist activities. **Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea.** ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/22 "2004-03-17T19:46:49Z")
Minor quibble- if my plan could be enacted by an act of Congress, then by definition it is not unconstitutional. If it would require an amendment, then it would be. I think the tail is wagging the dog here. The point of an election is to give the people the govenment that they want. What system would maximize this chance- delay an election for a couple of weeks or hold elections in the aftershock of an extraordinary event? I argue for the former. What kind of government would we have had, had the election been held on 9/12/01? I don’t know, but I really wouldn’t want to find out. Likewise, the Spanish may wish they hadn’t voted in the passion of the 3/11 tragedy. To say that allowing the schedule of an election to change is a victory for the terrorists, preferring instead to allow the outcome to be affected by terrorism makes no sense to me. ---
**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, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/23 "2004-03-17T20:02:20Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea. > [@SimonX](#): > > **Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea.** > [@SimonX](#): > > **Providing greater incentive for terrorist activities is an abhorrent, fucked-up idea.** Ok, Ok, thrice times OK! I get it. I get what you’re saying. I’m just not convinced yet that delaying an election for a short time after a terrorist attack is any more likely to “provide greater incentive for terrorist activities” than, say, invading a sovereign Middle Eastern country, excessive use of ones veto on Israels behalf in the UN, Guantanamo Bay… ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/24 "2004-03-17T20:05:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > To say that allowing the schedule of an election to change is a victory for the terrorists, preferring instead to allow the outcome to be affected by terrorism makes no sense to me. I didn’t use the phrase “victory for the terrorists” to describe the undue and unwarranted influence over a country’s election that some would like to give them. It’s wrong to increase terrorists’ influence over an election. ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831/25 "2004-03-17T20:09:24Z")
> [@legion](#): > > I’m just not convinced yet that delaying an election for a short time after a terrorist attack is any more likely to “provide greater incentive for terrorist activities” than, say, invading a sovereign Middle Eastern country, excessive use of ones veto on Israels behalf in the UN, Guantanamo Bay… That an idea is no worse than some other bad ideas doesn’t make it a good idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-elections-be-delayed-after-a-terrorist-attack/234831.md?page=1)