Article that I liked...

[Greg_W]

I like this article

 

I think this might have been talked about before, but I liked this editorial. Read at your leisure.

 

Greg_W

[dukiebird]

Good stuff.

[rbw1966]

Interesting read Greg. Thanks for posting it.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

 

It's interesting that a President who insists that we must "stay the course" in Iraq no matter what the insurgents over there do, and that we "must not let the terrorists win" would back an idea such as this. DFA first saw a report about this in the BBC's e-mail service, and was astonished that they would even consider such a thing. This, in Dr. Flash Amazing's opinion, is FAR scarier than hijacked airplanes, anthrax, or IEDs.

[cj001f]

Planning an alternate day for the election is intelligent - if the 2nd Tues in November turns into tragedy, say choose the 2nd Tues in December. Simi to the succesion of power in the executive branch this would ensure order instead of chaos in the event of tragedy.

 

What's frightening about the whole election postponement was the concept of an at will postponement for indefinite reasons to an undetermined date. That's the stuff of 3rd world dictatorships.

[cracked]

I hate it when I agree with cj001f.

[graupel]

Curious that the fearful would think it is okay to delay the election and consequently the results when the Supreme Court decided that it wasn't okay to provide additional time to count the votes in Florida in 2000.

[cj001f]

Curious that the fearful would think it is okay to delay the election and consequently the results when the Supreme Court decided that it wasn't okay to provide additional time to count the votes in Florida in 2000.

 

The Supreme Court said it wasn't ok for the Florida Supreme Court to establish new standards for resolving presidential elections.

 

Are changes to the order of Presidential Succession, like H.R. 2319 fearful? Provided the act, or amendment, were created with strict measures and levels of voter disenfranchisement, what would be the objection?

[Mal_Con]

It is inexcusable to delay the election no matter what. If delayed it has no legitimacy no matter who wins. The only exception I can conceive of is total nuclear devastation or alien invasion

[glacier]

Agreed - the elections have not been postponed, even during the Civil War, the most tumultuous time in our history. Hence, something shocking, albeit minor, like a terrorist attack, should have no effect on the ability of our country to complete an election. For instance, a subway blast in New York is not going to prevent someone in Kansas from going to the polls. If using that metric, then we should postpone an election because there was a blizzard in Minnesota that kept some people out of the polls.

[cj001f]

Hence, something shocking, albeit minor, like a terrorist attack, should have no effect on the ability of our country to complete an election.

So Terrorist attacks in NYC and say San Francisco - which would possibly affect millions of voters, in states with large numbers of electoral votes, wouldn't make a difference in the outcome?

 

New York City suspended a Primary Election on 9/11 - did they cave to terrorism?

 

Currently the state legislature will appoint the presidential electors if they vote is unable to be certified (as Florida prepared to do). Is that really a better and more democratic solution?

 

Why is it so scary to contemplate this? to flag waving patriotic stupidity.

[glacier]

I don't think that having a contingency plan is totally out of the question, but the context in which the administration seems to be bringing up the subject is suspect.

 

Perhaps define affect?

 

The 9/11 attacks drectly affected 3,400 voters, in that they perished in that attack. It also indirectly affected the psyche of NYC and the country, but not so much that the country ground to a literal halt (air travel excepted). If the attack had happened on 11/2 in a presidential election year, rather than 9/11, the country would have gone on with the elections, although, like Spain, the outcome of the voting may have been altered.

 

The scope of a terrorist attack, even in a heavily populated metro area, would have to be truly massive to physically prevent people from reaching the polls, like something on a nuclear scale. So what is the criteria that would need to be met in order to postpone an election?

 

After all, a presidential election was held in 1812, after war had been declared in June of that year, U.S. forces had lost a number of battles against British-Canadian forces, and british troops were on American territorial soil.

[cj001f]

I don't think that having a contingency plan is totally out of the question, but the context in which the administration seems to be bringing up the subject is suspect.

 

Perhaps define affect?

 

I agree that the administration's movements have been odd. Which is why I mentioned the possibility of an election delay if:

1)The date the election is to be moved to is predetermined

2)How many voters must be affected to change the date, and how to quatify those affected is included in the date change.

[glacier]

Only one criteria, as I see it:

 

Sufficient damage to national infrastructure in that the mechanisms to operate an election have been significantly compromised.