| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack |
| 2004-07-12 |
| A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday. "I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition." Gee, ya think? No delays, no cancellation for sure. We had elections even during our civil war, a bunch of pig-ignorant savages won't stop one. |
| Posted by:mojo |
| #12 Matt, I somehow expect the Pentagon to do that. I bet they had one for Grenada well before they needed it. But that election thing is something you can decide when shit has happened. Yes I know, the scenarios for New Orleans or San Francisco aren't that absurd. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-07-12 7:24:32 PM |
| #11 "or a meteorite hits Chicago or floods drown New Orleans..." TGA, I wish those events were equally unlikely. We're losing 35 square miles of wetland a year down here. This whole thing reminds me of those articles that appear from time to time in which a reporter discovers that in 1962 some junior officer in the Pentagon prepared a contingency plan to invade Madagascar. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-07-12 6:52:05 PM |
| #10 Zhang Fei, it seems a bit too "German" for America trying to find regulations for really everything that might happen. I mean, has anyone ever pushed for legislation to decide what steps to take should the big quake pulverize San Francisco or Los Angeles (which isn't such an absurd thought) one day before scheduled elections? Or what to do if Yellowstone erupts or a meteorite hits Chicago or floods drown New Orleans? And what does "postpone" mean? A day, a week, a month? And how big must a terror attack be? How many victims, how many areas concerned? Sorry folks, the Supreme Court could always rule on what to do in an emergency meeting. Yes, what if the Supreme Court is pulverized... Yes what if the sky falls down... I think that discussion about delaying elections is just water on the mills of the LLL and their conspiracy theories. They already see the "Reichstag" burning. What the administration should definitely not push for is to postpone elections thinking of Madrid. Trust the people to make the right choice. If elections are technically possible they should be held as scheduled. You don't want a bunch of terrorists to be the first to interrupt the democratic process in the USA. Would Roosevelt have postponed scheduled elections, had Pearl Harbor happened a few days before? I doubt it. LH, no official reaction, inofficial reaction: "not helpful" (read: "he missed a good opportunity to keep quiet"). Germany wants more NATO in Afghanistan and has been moving closer to US positions for months now (Schroeder had very positive things to say about Bush in Istanbul). |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-07-12 6:41:26 PM |
| #9 TGA sighting Off topic (to this thread) German reaction French position on NATO in Afghanistan? Sense (here) that Chirac is still pushing "off the deep end" |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-07-12 3:47:18 PM |
| #8 TGA: And unless it's technically impossible to hold election on that day or seriously disenfranchising people in attacked areas I think nobody wants to mess with the elections. I think this will be the sticking point. Does NYC get to have a say in the presidential elections if it can't participate in the polls because the whole city is shut down? Confederate-controlled states weren't counted in the 1864 polls. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-12 3:40:05 PM |
| #7 This seems to be the new darling of the American LLL. But you know what's strange here? I can't find any Republicans who are in favor of delaying the elections. And unless it's technically impossible to hold election on that day or seriously disenfranchising people in attacked areas I think nobody wants to mess with the elections. I don't know but I'm sure that there are old plans stashed away about what to do in case of a Soviet attack, right? |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-07-12 3:27:46 PM |
| #6 Actually, much of the country was in lockdown mode in the days after September 11. How does one conduct an election in the middle of all this? (In NYC, roads were closed and there was no subway or bus service for days). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-12 1:04:59 PM |
| #5 You have to have some type of plan for a worse case scenario. What would have happened if the 911 attack had happened on an election day? No way people in NYC could have voted, they were too busy ducking for cover and trying to rescue survivors. So do you just tell them, "Sorry, you had your chance"? And the rest of the country was watching the attack on TV and waiting for the next shoe to drop. How many of them would have remembered it was a election day? Seems to me you need a plan, or at least have a discussion about the need for a plan to reschedule the election if needed. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-07-12 12:43:17 PM |
| #4 DPA: Yeah, let's bar berkeley, san francisco, seattle, portland and new york city from the elections as a matter of national security ;) Actually, if NYC (the likeliest target) turns into a pile of ashes, I suspect that would mean that elections would go on, but without NYC. Would the electoral votes be parcelled out to the rest of the state or eliminated on a pro rata basis? This sounds ghoulish, but a lot of contingency planning is like that - planning for the unthinkable. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-12 12:38:23 PM |
| #3 Yeah, let's bar berkeley, san francisco, seattle, portland and new york city from the elections as a matter of national security ;) |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-07-12 12:34:11 PM |
| #2 mojo: No delays, no cancellation for sure. We had elections even during our civil war, a bunch of pig-ignorant savages won’t stop one. It strikes me that some states would have to have been excluded from the Electoral College in 1864, given that they were under Confederate rule at the time of the elections. Will we end up doing the same if a major terror attack occurs? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-12 12:28:27 PM |
| #1 It's a worst case scenario, you look at it. The odds of it happening, probably zero. But, of course, Snoozeweek's take is that the black helicopters are warming up on the White House lawn filled with the jackbooted thugs. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-07-12 12:08:30 PM |