| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Ridge says no to plan for delaying elections |
| 2004-07-13 |
| The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders Monday that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said no such plan is being considered by the administration. Federal officials warned last week that intelligence indicates Al Qaeda wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections. "There does not appear to be a clear process in place to suspend or reschedule voting during an election if there is a major terrorist attack," DeForest B. Soaries, chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, wrote in a letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the one-page letter. Rice said the Bush administration, while concerned about the impact of terrorism, is not thinking of postponing the elections. "We’ve had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That’s the view of the president, that’s the view of the administration," Rice said in a televised interview Monday. Soaries also sent lawmakers copies of an earlier letter he wrote to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. In that letter, dated June 25, Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York and state officials delayed voting until later that month. He wrote that no federal agency has the statutory authority to cancel or reschedule a federal election. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #14 I'm with Steve W on this one. They damn well better have a plan, that's why I pay these people. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-13 12:24:25 PM |
| #13 Its one thing to have a plan, and another to execute it. Only idiots confuse the two, and only the vicious conflate the two. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-07-13 9:24:27 AM |
| #12 Black helicopters. Stand down. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-07-13 8:52:39 AM |
| #11 nice web-site Anonymous, it's better if children are neither seen nor heard here. Now run along. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-07-13 6:52:23 AM |
| #10 nice web-site ... http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html |
| Posted by: Anonymous178100 2004-07-13 6:46:00 AM |
| #9 I am voting I be damn I let some Islamonazi try and influence me. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2004-07-13 3:53:28 AM |
| #8 We should NOT delay the elcetions, no matter the turnout. Any delay or change makes the terrorists the winners. Besides I read that the CIA said that the Kerry/Edwards ticket was a "Slam Dunk." Why make them wait for the outcome? I don't care if I have to be scared about getting hurt. I vote, attack or not, in November. The idea that an election could be influenced in this country by a buncha pussies who can't survive a stand up fight is a hateful idea to me. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-07-13 1:36:23 AM |
| #7 I think the question only pertains to the Presidential elections, since individual Congressional districts affected by terrorist strikes can always have a temporary Congressman appointed by the state's governor. For Presidential elections, the question is this - what happens to a state that is struck by a major terror attack? Does the state count only the votes for the presidency cast by the districts that are able to vote? If so, then we have business as usual. NYC gets leveled by a nuke, but voting in NY state goes on as it normally does, and the presidential candidate who wins a majority in the state gets all the electoral votes, in accordance with tradition. There would be some similarities with 1864, where Abraham Lincoln was reelected without the votes of the Confederate-controlled states. The president-elect (Kerry or Bush) would win the 2004 elections on the basis of electoral votes tallied up without reference to the votes of whatever districts are unable to vote due to a terrorist attack. My bottom line is that the Presidential election should go on as scheduled, even if entire cities are leveled, and are thus unable to participate. State-by-state majorities can be tallied without the participation of those districts destroyed. Entire states were excluded during the Civil War because they were unable to participate. Merely excluding specific districts due to infrastructure or security problems is minor compared to the extraordinary measures taken during the Civil War. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-13 1:18:37 AM |
| #6 We should NOT delay the elcetions, no matter the turnout. Any delay or change makes the terrorists the winners. Besides I read that the CIA said that the Kerry/Edwards ticket was a "Slam Dunk." Why make them wait for the outcome? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-07-13 1:10:23 AM |
| #5 Not unless Kerry channels with the dead. Maybe, since he's got the Hollyweird crowd rooting for him, he can get Shirley McClain to assist. She's into dead shit. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-13 1:02:05 AM |
| #4 Could be possible that Kerry would conspire with BinLaden to do something in the week of the election so Kerry can win? like what happened in Spain ! |
| Posted by: Anonymous149336 2004-07-13 12:49:01 AM |
| #3 I dunno. My wife and I were talking about this tonight over dinner, and she thought it was proper foresight to have some sort of plan. I think it ought to be the states that plan this, however, and not the feds. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-07-13 12:39:03 AM |
| #2 Why, who... in their right mind allowed this insanity to go public?? Talk about giving the enemy(s) a score card of mega-ideas. |
| Posted by: Mark Espinola 2004-07-13 12:26:19 AM |
| #1 I've already seen scumbags trying to play this up as Bush asked for this and is trying to become a dictator. How low can these bastards go? |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-13 12:15:28 AM |