1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Delaying Nov. elections in the event of terrorist attack...

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by KingCheetah, Jul 11, 2004.

Tags:
Page 2 of 3
  1. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    The day my friend arrived in Nepal a bus exploded killing 14 civilians. The Maoists run amok there.
     
    #21 giddyup, Jul 11, 2004
  2. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,616
    Likes Received:
    6,583
    More knee-jerk consipiracy theory reaction from the same liberals. It's sad that some people do not even apply rational thought processes before instinctively jumping to ridiculous anti-American government conclusions.

    This is a case of the Dept of Homeland Security *asking* the Justice Dept to look into what is legal in case of an attack. This is not some scheme concocted by the White House to figure out what day is most expedient for liberals to not be able to vote. This is being done to explore ways *FOR* people to be able to vote in case of a disaster. Why do the libs jump to such insane conclusions? It's truly sickening. Quit dividing America with your idiotic, unfounded conspiracy theories. I think we are all sick of your negativity and contempt for American leaders.

    It's like some of you don't even respond without watching your bootleg version of Fahrenheit 911 and listening to your Whoopi Goldberg hate rhetoric.
     
    #22 El_Conquistador, Jul 11, 2004
  3. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,231
    Thanks for the reply, giddy. I guess I was trying to figure out what it had to do with the apparent "planning" for an election delay. And that I do find incomprehensible.

    I haven't been to Nepal, but from everything I read, it's staggeringly beautiful. So yes, be careful, Sam. The Maoists, some of the last outside of China worth mentioning, I suppose, are truly running amok and killing folks left, right and center.
     
    #23 Deckard, Jul 11, 2004
  4. AroundTheWorld

    AroundTheWorld Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    83,288
    Likes Received:
    62,281
    SamFisher, two things which are off-topic:

    A friend of mine recently went to Tibet with a few friends. They told me it was a truly memorable trip and took a lot of pictures which I think they have online somewhere. I could ask them for the link, if you are interested.


    SamFisher, I assume you never took Latin classes at school. I did, in fact, and the Ambrose Bierce quote you use is very incorrect Latin. The correct phrase would be "Cogito me cogitare ergo cogito me esse." I realize it does not sound quite as catchy as the Bierce quote, but it's funny that that incorrect sentence has made it into so many message board sigs.
     
    #24 AroundTheWorld, Jul 11, 2004
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2004
  5. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Man, it's sad to read these Jorge posts nowadays. It's like Jorge's poorest hits. Like he's not even trying to make a point anymore. Just sad.
     
    #25 Batman Jones, Jul 11, 2004
  6. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,231
    Who??
     
    #26 Deckard, Jul 11, 2004
  7. robbie380

    robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    23,989
    Likes Received:
    11,163
    i know this where some of you guys are coming from on this, but is it really that scary to think that they are just trying to have some sort of plan if something does happen?

    for the sake of argument lets say there is a terrible attack and bush is assassinated or the senate is blown up or kerry is assassinated or any number of things...would it be wrong to have a contingency plan in place to delay elections? i don't really see this as being about bush being greater than the democracy. i see it more as ensuring that democracy is able to properly executed in the event of a horrible attack. its not like they are saying they would delay elections if there was a threat that something would happen. they are saying they are looking into other possible plans if an attack does happen and whether it would be better to have elections immediately after an attack.

    opinions?
     
    #27 robbie380, Jul 11, 2004
  8. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    So in the event of a major disaster there isn't already a contingency plan? Do we need a new plan to deal specifically with this new breed of terrorist? I cannot for a second imagine that this is the first time this has ever been discussed.
     
    #28 KingCheetah, Jul 11, 2004
  9. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,821
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    Trader_Jorge made a great point...Exploring ways for people to vote in the event of a conflicting disaster upon us (especially via terror) makes most sense to me...This isn't about being a face, according to the green one, or using tricks, or even finding Cheney's secret underground bunker...

    The culmination of debate should be in agreement that being ready, prepared, and anticipatory is an effective strategy we should support from the Department of Homeland Defense...The purpose is to allow the voting process to be affirmed, and if no plan was in place, and the unthinkable happened, these same hotheads who bark foul, will blame the administration for not planning...Clearly, we don't want NO delay whatsoever, but I am all for planning better by the Government, especially when it deals with us and our rights!...
     
    #29 ROXRAN, Jul 11, 2004
  10. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,126
    Likes Received:
    10,164
    I see the same people that in 2000 argued timeliness was more important then accuracy now putting forth the idea that accuracy is more important then timeliness.

    As for me, I'm willing to climb over bodies and rubble to vote. Everyone should be willing to do this... in 1864, elections were held with a rebel army in the field. Screw contingency plans... just vote.
     
    #30 rimrocker, Jul 11, 2004
  11. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,821
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    As it deals with votes?...No doubt, the plan must be reviewed, if any prior plan existed as it deals with voting...I don't think a plan is in place as it encompasses the voting process via intervention of terror or substantial disaster otherwise, the DHS wouldn't have examined procedures into the planning process...
     
    #31 ROXRAN, Jul 11, 2004
  12. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,231
    I gave mine, but I'll try and clarify a tiny bit. If Washington is obliterated by a nuke or is contaminated by a citywide "dirty" bomb, or if a nuke exploded in New York, LA, DC or another of the major cities, then I would still want our elections held.

    Through all the various disasters, wars and assassinations this country has experienced, I don't know of an instance when our national elections have been "postponed." Why would we under any possibility? If the seat of government, along with it's members, were destroyed in an instant, you need them more than ever. During the madness of the Civil War, were our elections postponed? Not that I'm aware of. I think it's more important than ever to have them during a crisis or catastrophe. What better way to insure Americans that the country is still functioning and viable? Why would Americans of any party want the elections postponed and the government in the grip of martial law, with the "date certain" of elections up in the air? You have them, no matter what. It's the best "**** you!" that could be directed at our enemies.
     
    #32 Deckard, Jul 11, 2004
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2004
  13. ROXRAN

    ROXRAN Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2000
    Messages:
    18,821
    Likes Received:
    5,225
    Screw Planning?...No way!... 9/11/01 proves that we must learn to plan under all kinds of intervening scenarios connecting with terror...
     
    #33 ROXRAN, Jul 11, 2004
  14. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    My friend said he was warned about the Maoists. They will hold you up for cash, but when they do, they will give you a receipt that you can show should you be held up again; you are not obligated to fork over money (usually about $10-15) a second time. Such polite bandits!
     
    #34 giddyup, Jul 11, 2004
  15. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    For this administration to bring this up just months from the election is asinine – if there were to be any major changes (a first in our history) planning should have begun years ago.

    Come hell or high water there should not be any changes to our election process this year.

    Here is an article from the Washington Post a month after 9/11 discussing this very problem. Again, if any changes were to be made the process should have started long ago ~ the possibility of a terrorist attack during the elections is nothing new...
    ____________________________________________


    This Is One Terrorist Threat We Can Thwart Now

    By Akhil Reed Amar, Southmayd Professor of Law

    (This article originally appeared in the Sunday, November 11, 2001, edition of the "Washington Post.")

    A year ago this month, a freakishly close presidential election focused Americans' attention on the glitches of election codes and voting machines, and spurred talk of election reform. Now, different images haunt our imagination and anti-terrorism legislation is the order of the day. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that future terrorists might target the very foundations of our democracy--the elections themselves.

    Election reform, meet anti-terrorism legislation.

    Over the past year, more than 1,500 election bills have been introduced in legislatures across America proposing fixes for what had gone wrong in the past--everything from modernizing tabulation technology to repealing the electoral college and making Election Day a national holiday. And then the terrorists struck.

    Our new awareness of the possibility of terrorism brings into focus a set of problems that have shadowed our voting system for decades. Natural disasters can compromise elections, as can a candidate's election-eve death or incapacitation, whether from natural causes or assassination. If tragedy were to strike in late October or early November, would voters be able to weigh their remaining electoral options? The fallout could be far more destabilizing than the few weeks of uncertainty we lived through last year.

    Think back for a moment to the reason Sept. 11 was a specially marked date on New Yorkers' calendars: It was a local election day, with contests that included the city's mayoral primary. As the horrific events unfolded, Gov. George Pataki understood that an orderly and democratically satisfactory election that day was impossible. State law allowed him to postpone the balloting. But current federal law does not permit a similar delay of congressional and presidential elections. The law mandates an election on the first Tuesday after Nov. 1, come hell or high water, terror or trauma.

    So suppose that a major presidential or vice presidential candidate dies or is incapacitated shortly before Election Day. A patchwork of state laws governs ballot access and counting, and most states allow national parties to substitute new candidates. But in some situations, parties would lack time to deliberate and state officials would lack time to print revised ballots. Without some postponement, voters might not even know whom they were really voting for. If presidential candidate Smith died, would a vote for Smith be counted as a vote for his or her vice presidential running mate Jones, or for some player to be named later by a conclave of party bigwigs?

    An issue of this kind arose last year in Missouri. U.S. Senate candidate Mel Carnahan died in mid-October, but voters nevertheless elected him in November in the expectation that his wife, Jean Carnahan, would be installed in his stead. She was. But had he died closer to the election or had the loser--then-Sen. John Ashcroft--been less gracious and more litigious, Missouri might have been almost as tumultuous as Florida last December.

    The 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy spurred reformers to enact the 25th Amendment, which streamlined issues of vice presidential succession. But the assassination five years later of the late president's brother--presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy--failed to prompt comparable reform to address the death or disability of presidential candidates. Indeed, had RFK been shot hours before the general election rather than hours after the California primary, the vulnerability of the current system would have been obvious to all--and would likely have prompted serious discussion of election-postponement legislation.

    Election reform to protect against such dramatic assaults will require hard choices. The tight timetable we now have was created by the 20th Amendment in 1933 to shrink the lame-duck period between a president's election and inauguration. The idea was that an incumbent president should yield as quickly as possible--on Jan. 20, to be precise--to a new president with a fresh electoral mandate. But shortening that period any further would not only leave less time for counting, recounting and resolving any complaints that arise, it would also make it harder for the eventual winner to assemble his new administration before inauguration. (Last year's shortened transition period surely complicated life for George W. Bush.)

    One option would be for federal law to move the federal Election Day to October, with provision for postponement in rare circumstances. This, of course, would widen the very gap between election and inauguration that the 20th Amendment sought to shrink. A better response would thus be to keep Election Day as is, but allow brief postponement in rare circumstances, with streamlined voting technology, statutes and court procedures to ensure enough time for proper counts and recounts.

    A sound reform law might also allow for the postponement of the electoral college meeting. State laws often purport to bind electors to vote for the candidate who won the state's popular vote; but what if this candidate has died or become disabled between Election Day and the day of the meeting?

    This actually happened in 1872, when Democrat Horace Greeley died shortly after losing to incumbent Ulysses S. Grant. Some loyal electors voted as pledged--for the dead man--and Congress later disregarded their votes. Little turned on Congress's ruling, given that Greeley had clearly lost in November. Had he won, however, surely the fairest result would have been to credit his electoral votes to his running mate. Otherwise, the party that won the presidency on Election Day could conceivably lose it before the inauguration. But Congress in 1873 simply tossed Greeley's votes aside, and that precedent remains a source of potential mischief today. Like ordinary voters, electors should understand in advance whether and how their votes will be counted, and should be able to cast these votes in an atmosphere of calm deliberation. And that may mean allowing for the postponement of the electoral college meeting in a crisis.

    The question remains of how--and by whom--a postponement should be triggered. Handing this power to the chief justice risks sucking the Supreme Court into partisan politics, the danger of which is well illustrated by last year's controversy surrounding Bush v. Gore. The current Federal Election Commission may likewise lack the necessary credibility and impartiality. One possibility would be to let each major party (defined as the top two vote-getters in the previous election) trigger a postponement upon request. Parties would hesitate to delay elections for frivolous or partisan reasons because the voters could immediately punish any postponements seen as gamesmanship.

    A final issue is whether, in an emergency, to postpone all federal elections or simply the presidential one. Once again, a law could be drafted to specify the decision maker and vest that person with considerable discretion. Because federal law controls only federal elections, each state would decide whether to postpone elections for state officers so as to coordinate with the delayed federal election, or whether instead to hold two elections in short order for state and federal officers, respectively.

    However all these wrinkles are ironed out, the experiences of this past year have made it clear that election reform proposals cannot afford to focus exclusively on fixing the problems of the past. Our democratic processes need to be protected from much less predictable threats.

    Akhil Amar is Southmayd Professor of Law at Yale Law School and the author of several books on the Constitution.

    Link
     
    #35 KingCheetah, Jul 11, 2004
  16. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,231
    You're kidding! I bet the government wishes they were that polite to them. :eek:
     
    #36 Deckard, Jul 11, 2004
  17. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,860
    Likes Received:
    41,373
    Thanks all, though I'm pretty sure I will be ok as I am going with a pretty reputable agency. I could use the adrenalin anyway.

    SJC: I don't know latin but do know spanish and french and figured the conjugation was wrong but used the devils dictionary quote anyway.
     
    #37 SamFisher, Jul 11, 2004
  18. twhy77

    twhy77 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    73
    Hypothetical:

    Let's say an event of or greater than the magnitude of 9/11 happens again right before or on the day of an election.

    Let me get this straight, rimrocker is saying he would rather climb over rubble to go vote rather than help out in any way shape or form with those who are in trouble? Maybe that characterization is wrong, and knowing your courage in the line of helping out with forrest fires I know its wrong.

    First things first, a lot of people, say in NY or wherever, simply would not vote. I mean honestly, it wouldn't cross their minds. hmmm...let's see My office buliding is in flames and I've spent all day on the phone trying to see if my sister in DC is alive....maybe I should go vote.

    Secondly, its not a plan to erase the election. If anything it helps moderate democracy. Obviuolsy this isn't the best reason, but do we really want the voting frame of mind of our citizens to be that of one coming out of a terrorist attack.

    Thirdly, I think any sort of attack hurts Bush, because it says, wow, couldn't stop it this time could you man, so I really don't see how delaying it is some imperial move by the dark syth lord to keep control of power.
     
    #38 twhy77, Jul 12, 2004
  19. Dream Sequence

    Dream Sequence Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2000
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    626
    I'm quite surprised that there is this much uproar over CONTINGENCY PLANNING. Come on people, be realistic. I mean seriously, if an attack prevented a meaningful number of people from voting or affected the nation drastically, wouldn't you rather move the election by a few days if it meant a fairer election? I don't think that means the terrorist wins.
     
    #39 Dream Sequence, Jul 12, 2004
  20. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Boy, it wouldn't surprise me if the Bush Administration allowed another attack on our soil so that they could delay elections which would give them more time to find bin Laden. Book it.

    ;)
     
    #40 giddyup, Jul 12, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 3

Share This Page