Welp, Democracy was fun.

[choie]

Hey, guess what? The U.S.'s 230-year-old experiment seems to have run its course.

Okay, that’s hyperbolic, I admit it. Still, at least one Republican in charge of a major government voting commission is starting to make preparations for “postponing” the election … just in case, y’know, some big terrorist plot happens. God forbid, of course.

linkiepoo

The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

“I am still awaiting their response,” he said. “Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion.” Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

(Emphasis mine.)

Ha! I’m sure they didn’t comment. Ol’ Soaries opened the lid a little too soon, did he? But … um … canceling the election? As in, not just suspending, but doing away with altogether? Well, excuse the fuck outta me, but while I can (maybe) see the reason for postponing an election should some big terrorist event occur, now this asshole is talking about canceling it altogether??? That’s some scary shit, yo.

“The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who’s in charge?” he said.

Yeah. Who indeed. I bet Bush and Cheney reeeeally want it to be them. I hate to sound paranoid, though I know subsequent posters will call me that anyway. But is anyone else skeeved out by the prospect of the administration in power deciding that “it’s just not safe” to hold elections … especially when they’re down in the polls? What if what “not safe” really means is “Bush might lose”?

I’m only 1/4 kidding here. Seriously, I used to joke to my friends that if Kerry is leading in November, you can bet that the administration will announce an oh-so-convenient Red Terror Alert, followed up by martial law and the suspension of our voting rights. Now I’m worried that it isn’t such a paranoid fantasy.

Moving away from my tinfoil hat fears: Remember that wonderful overused phrase, “if we don’t continue as normal, the terrorists will have won”? What happened to using that as a strategy to deal with terror? Bush applied it back in December 2001, exhorting us all to continue shopping, going to Disneyland, etc.

So, lemme get this straight. Buying Christmas gifts back in 2001 as Bush told us to do? That was sending a pretty good signal to the terrorists that they couldn’t beat us.

Proceding with an activity that displays our country’s finest tradition of democracy in action? Not so much.

What the fucking fuck?

[Exgineer]

@choie

I’m only 1/4 kidding here. Seriously, I used to joke to my friends that if Kerry is leading in November, you can bet that the administration will announce an oh-so-convenient Red Terror Alert, followed up by martial law and the suspension of our voting rights. Now I’m worried that it isn’t such a paranoid fantasy.

I’m not trying to be mean, but that is sort of paranoid.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would stand for that.

[lightingtool]

This is absolutely ridiculous. This country held elections in 1864 - during the Civil War (War Between the States, War of Northern Aggression, etc.). I can’t imagine these new “guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections” will gather much support (I hope).

[GaWd]

@Exgineer

I’m not trying to be mean, but that is sort of paranoid.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would stand for that.

Just like nobody would stand for an unwarranted and unsupported attack upon an oil-rich nation based on falsified information given to the administration, right? You bet your ass that a certain population of politicians and citizens would support this crap. Hell, even after proof of the fabrication that the Iraq data was, people still believe that OBL and Iraq were in bed together developing nuclear and Bio weapons and that we were justified in attacking Iraq based on the thin as hell tinfoil hat paranoia the Administration fed Congress and the citizens of the nation.

Not in this country, dammit!

Sam

[andros]

@Exgineer

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would stand for that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
:wipes tears away:

Oh, thanks so much. I needed that.

[lissener]

I think these fears are well founded. I hope this gets shot down but fast.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Exgineer

I’m not trying to be mean, but that is sort of paranoid.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would stand for that.

Ah… and what would we all do about it? Go to the locked polling stations and hold protests? When the whole country’s reeling in shock and horror and vengeful outrage from a new 9/11 type attack, and martial law’s been imposed – for the safety of the country, of course?

I’d really, REALLY like to believe it’s impossible. But my supply of tinfoil is running out.

And on preview: GaWd, how dare you sow dissent and treasonous doubt among the people of this Great Freedom-Loving Nation[sup]tm[/sup]? If we listen to people like you, the terrorists win!

[GaWd]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

And on preview: GaWd, how dare you sow dissent and treasonous doubt among the people of this Great Freedom-Loving Nation[sup]tm[/sup]? If we listen to people like you, the terrorists win!

Word up. What exactly is the score of the match anyways?

Freedom-Loving Nation: 1
Terrorists: 1599

Doin real good, ain’t we? Establishing Peace and Democracy around the globe since 2001…

Sam

[The_Tim]

Somehow I don’t think “They can have my ballot when they pry it from my cold dead hands.” becoming a common phrase in the country.

Then again it isn’t really a great plan to pull that kind of crap on a country that is angry and packing.

How exactly would you word the cancellation of an election? “Due to threats to our freedom we have decided to cancel all elections in the immediate future for your security. Elections will resume when it is once more safe to be free.”

[choie]

Yeah, Exingeer, I gotta agree with andros and GaWd. After every revelation about this administration’s corrupt and scary behavior, I keep thinking “well, at last NOW the public will see what a power-hungry, nasty bunch of Mayberry Macchiavellis we have in office.”

But inevitably the public opens its sleepy eyes, mutters “wow, that’s a fuckin’ outrage,” yawns, then rolls back over and makes itself comfortable in bed. (Or gets distracted with something shiny, like a naked boob during the Super Bowl.)

Sadly, no one’s gonna get rich by overestimating Americans’ level of outrage and willingness to stand up for our rights.

Democracy is being led by the nose to its own destruction. Not only don’t many of us see it, when it’s shown to us we don’t even care.

[choie]

Oops, should’a previewed. That’s Exgineer, not whatever the mishmash I made of your name. Sorry 'bout that.

And “word” to what the rest of you guys said. If I am paranoid, at least I have company!

[Reeder]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about canceling an election. Were Bushco to try it. long live the revolution.

[Metacom]

I don’t see what’s so bad about this. If something major happens on or immediately prior to election day, I think a a single short (at most a couple of weeks) postponement is warranted. It’s not like it would change the innaguration date or anything–just give the media and the populace a chance to calm down (who wants to go vote when you’re wondering if that relative in Xyzzycity is dead?) and hopefully lessen the influence hysteria would have on the voting public.

[manhattan]

@lightingtool

This is absolutely ridiculous. This country held elections in 1864 - during the Civil War (War Between the States, War of Northern Aggression, etc.). I can’t imagine these new “guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections” will gather much support (I hope).

Primary elections in NYC were postponed after 9/11. Or more specifically, on 9/11, as that’s when they were occurring.

It makes perfect sense to me for jurisdictions to make contingency plans in case elections are disrupted by terrorists (or otherwise – imagine an 8+ earthquake in Northern California on election day. Would you want Bush to win a second term because San Fransciscans couldn’t get to the polls?). And it makes sense for the federal government to encourage those plans and to make whatever logistical or even legislative changes are necessary to accomodate those changes.

[Revtim]

If Bush made a speech supporting this legislation, there would not only be many Americans supporting it, but I’m sure several Dopers would too.

“He’s not actually cancelling the election, he’s only making it POSSIBLE to cancel it in an emergency!”

And just like they trusted Bush when he said Iraq had WMDs, and bought yellowcake uranium from Niger, they will trust him to not abuse this legislation.

Folks trust their leader, when he happens to be the same political party they follow. And they don’t even think about that they have to trust future leaders that will get the same powers.

[Equipoise]

(drive-by non sequiter comment)

@The Tim

Somehow I don’t think “They can have my ballot when they pry it from my cold dead hands.” becoming a common phrase in the country.

The poor souls who will be voting electronically couldn’t say that no matter what. Their votes will just disappear off into the ether, with no proof of how they voted and no possibility to prove how they voted after the election.

The words “ballot,” “recount” and “fair elections” are fast becoming quaint.

(/drive-by non sequiter comment)

@The Tim

How exactly would you word the cancellation of an election? “Due to threats to our freedom we have decided to cancel all elections in the immediate future for your security. Elections will resume when it is once more safe to be free.”

Ha!

[silenus]

@Reeder

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about canceling an election. Were Bushco to try it. long live the revolution.

Rescheduling a local elections a few weeks later because of attack - sure. Cancel an election and you’ll see me right the on the barricades with Reeder. (Well, not on the same barricade, mind you. We live on opposite sides of the country. But the same metaphorical barricade nonetheless.)

[Syntropy]

Yeah, my vote means a lot… :rolleyes:
It’s generally accepted that the election is done before most of our ballots are even counted out here. Just once, I’d like to vote on a national election and believe in my heart that it made a difference one way or the other.

However; suspended is one thing. That article quite clearly said “Cancelled.” That’s not a contingency plan. That’s a dictatorship in the making.

[andros]

@Reeder

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about canceling an election. Were Bushco to try it. long live the revolution.

Nor is there anything in the Constitution about the right of the President to suspend habeas corpus, but it’s been done. And no revolution occurred.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by choie
Ha! I’m sure they didn’t comment. Ol’ Soaries opened the lid a little too soon, did he? But … um … canceling the election? As in, not just suspending, but doing away with altogether? Well, excuse the fuck outta me, but while I can (maybe) see the reason for postponing an election should some big terrorist event occur, now this asshole is talking about canceling it altogether??? That’s some scary shit, yo.

From the article you cited it seems to me that he’s using canceling and suspending to mean the same thing. In reference to the Sept. 11 elections the article says:

Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City — and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.

That phrasing looks to me to mean that he’s really talking about postponement.