Possible election postponement

[Anonymous]

Read about it here.

In essence, the US govt is looking at what would be required to postpone the elections, in case of a terrorist attack.

So, why would they want to do this?  A desperate ploy to hold onto power?  Delay the election until the political climate is more to their advantage?  I'm struggling to find an interpretation that isn't, "We don't want to lose waaaaah."

[WayAbvPar]

The conspiracy theorist in me suspects that they are just trying to marry the concept of the election and the concept of terrorism together...the 'average Joe' may feel more comfortable with the staus quo rather than take a gamble on someone new.

Anything to sow fear and dependency on the government for direction.

More rationally, I think that making ANY changes because of possible threats is EXACTLY what the terrorists want. Perhaps if we weren't flushing billions down the quagmire that is Iraq, we could afford to spend more money running the terrorists down. I read last week that Al Qaeda's leadership is suspected of being holed up along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. That is a hell of a long way from Baghdad.

[Alluvian]

Do you really think a terrorist attack just prior to elections would have predictable effects on the vote?  Do you think it would sway people left?  I highly doubt that, but I don't see that as the reason this is going into effect.

You saw how much of a clusterfuck florida was last election and that is just because some stupid county reps can't run a fucking voting booth.  How do you think votes would get counted if one or many voting precints got blown up?  What would happen?  We don't have anything right now to take care of that possibility.  It would yet AGAIN send the fucking election into the judges.  I don't think anyone wants that mess again.

What if they hit a main power distribution center?  A large portion of a state or several states could be out of power without time to repair or bring in generators for the fully electronic voting system that is required now in many counties after 2000.

It is just a method of covering the bases.  I think a delay to let people calm down from fear a little bit, and time to repair/make alternate plans to get around any damage caused.

Christ, do you really think any administration would care about staying in power a scant two weeks longer?  Sheesh.  That is like saying florida 2000 was an elaborate Clinton administration plan to hold onto power longer that just happened to fail.  Well past tinfoil hat time IMO.

[daveNYC]

It depends on how it would be used.  If they delay the election just because of a threatened attack, I'm outta here.  On the other hand, if there is actually an attack on, or just before, election day, I believe that a delay would be in order.

The way the administration keeps throwing out the words 'terrorism' and 'election' in the same press conference just makes me suspicious about what will happen.

[Dark Vengeance]

Do you really think a terrorist attack just prior to elections would have predictable effects on the vote?

I agree with your post.

As close as Florida was, if you detonated a handful of polling places, you'd have altered the outcome of the election. And yes, believe it or not, different geographic areas have historic voting tendencies, which are often a factor in forming voting districts.

But moreso than something of this nature being used to affect the election's outcome, you have to consider what havoc it would create if we had something like 9/11, or even the big eastern blackout on election day.

Some folks are trying to whip out the conspiracy theories already, but it's basic CYA. You put in a disaster clause so we have a process to move forward even in the worst-case scenario.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Anonymous]

Who said anything about delaying the election to only hold onto power for two weeks?  One of the most obvious abuses would be to hold off the elections until they felt the voting climate was more to their liking.  Given the track record in Congress right now, with key votes being held up to armtwist a few more people to vote the "right" way, it's not much of a stretch.

[eldaec]

It is of course, just possible, someone thought they'd look bloody stupid if didn't have a plan in place in case of a real terrorist attack which could feasibly immobilise a siginificant proportion of, ooh, say, Florida.

[Daeven]

On Spetember 11th, there were municipal elections scheduled in NYC. As a result of the attacks on the Trade Center, they were postponed for a week.

One would think it would be reasonable to be able to do such a thing on a natnional scale in case of mass casualties due to an attack. For example, on the day of the elections, DC goes boom. The probable nation wide response would be the evacuation of most city centers. And you're going to try to hold elections while this is going on?

Less tinfoil hat people.

Prudent planning != OMG BUSH PREEMPTIVELY STEALS ELECTION! MASS APOCALYPSE COMMING! SPACE LASERS MAKE MY HEAD HURT AND VOTE REPUBLICAN! AAAAA!

[HaemishM]

It is of course, just possible, someone thought they'd look bloody stupid if didn't have a plan in place in case of a real terrorist attack which could feasibly immobilise a siginificant proportion of, ooh, say, Florida.

But after all, apparently all that's require to immobilize Floridian voters is a ballot.

[MrHat]

It doesn't concern me one bit that they are planning for an eventual terror attack on or around election day.

These guys sit around and think up scenarios all day and night trying to prepare US for everything.

My concern is that we don't hear about every scenario they are planning for, we only hear (via media) the ones that will provide more support for the current administration.

I was reading a speech by President Bush at Oak Grove and it was basically "We have maintained our freedom, but there will be more attacks, but don't worry, I mean worry, uh"  paraphrased of course.

[Murgos]

Do you really think a terrorist attack just prior to elections would have predictable effects on the vote?  Do you think it would sway people left?

I dunno, maybe we should ask the Spanish people how it affected them?

Hmm, just recently a country had massive terrorist attacks on the eve of thier major national elections that could possibly have had a serious influence on the outcome of the election.

Someone in Washington decides that maybe there should be plans in place incase something like this happens in the U.S..

Sounds reasonable to me, but then again I generally don't assume everything I hear was done with malevolent forethought.

[Sky]

BUSH PREEMPTIVELY STEALS ELECTION!

Once bitten, twice shy.

The PNAC has done quite enough furthering their global agendas, Kerry may be a douchebag, but at least he's not plugged into those douchebags.

Without a complete count, which is now impossible, I don't recognize GWB as the president. Odd that it all happened on the crucial final state, which his brother happened to be running at the time. A brother who is also a founding member of the PNAC, and now several principle cabinet members are also from the PNAC. Odd.

It's not tinfoil hat theory, it's history. Anyone who's done even the slightest research knows that attacking Iraq was planned out well beforehand, and 9/11 handed them the means, circuitous as they may have been. That's the facts.

So everything that has the possibility of being a shady move by this administration and their backers in the PNAC must be examined and monitored for tampering. It's just the smart thing to do.

[geldonyetich]

I suspected Bush Jr.'s administration, heartened by the electoral college overriding the popular vote the last time around, would try something like this.   However, I was hoping that it was just paranoia.

They're basically saying something along the lines of, "So long as a terrorist threat exists, we cannot have elections."

What this argument neglects to mention is a terrorist threat has existed throughout the duration of humankind.   If the election is delayed, when will it take place?   The next month?  No, the terrorists would have adequette time to expect that.  The next week?  No, still too risky.    The next day?   No, the terrorists still exist, dammit!

This is even worse than allowing the electoral college to swing them another election.    Since the election never takes place, Bush Jr. never gets to his second term.   This allows them to circumvent the two term limitation.

But no, obviously I'm wearing a tin hat or fearing outer space lasers or whatnot.   Surely there's a rational reason to fear terrorism.   There's *always* a rational fear for terrorism.

[cevik]

You guys have it all wrong.

Their real plan is to consistantly equate elections with terror attacks so that come election time they can hit us with "heightened security" in "at risk"  (read:  Left Leaning) districts.  Sent into a frenzy because of the constant Bush Administration fear mongering, people will welcome the aditional security.  The 10+ hour lines at the polling booths in these "at risk" (read: Left Leaning) areas will supress voter turnout in "at risk" (read:  Left Leaning) areas to all new lows, throwing what will look to be a total Kerry landslide in the polls a week ahead of the vote into a very slight electoral college victory for Bush (but not the popular vote, again).

Feel free to tell me all about tin foil hats, I'll bump this thread on November 3rd.

[SirBruce]

Al-Qaeda could be just as effective if they try to push the election to the RIGHT.

Imagine that the race is close, as in 2000.  It's 49% Bush 49% Gore and Florida is once again the close state.  Only a few thousand votes separate the two candidates.  AQ unleashes an attack in Florida cities, primarily Democratic districts, that prevent the people there from voting.

In the days following the recovery, Bush has won the election, but only by a few thousand votes.  Democrats charge that it's illegitimate because an estimated 20,000 voters, the vast majority Democrats, were unable to vote due to the terrorist attacks!  Other Democrats demand a Congressional investigation, charging that the Bush administration may have KNOWN about the attack and LET it happen in order to help re-elect Bush.  Meanwhile, public opinion has been whipped into such a frenzy that Bush's popularity falls several points, because he failed to prevent another attack (intentionally or not).  Republicans say it's impossible to let these people vote NOW, after everyone already knows what the results are.  And allowing the whole nation to revote would be prejudicial, because public opinion has swayed since the terrorist attack, and allowing that to change to government would be EXACTLY WHAT THE TERRORISTS WANT!  Democrats are not about to lose AGAIN in the Supreme Court.  Chaos ensues and civil war quickly follows.

Bruce

[Tebonas]

Does that mean the terrorists won if they can postpone elections in the USA with a simple terrorist act?

[SirBruce]

No, postponement wouldn't be winning.  Winning a battle, perhaps, but hardly the war.  It's not like the elections couldn't proceeed the following month.

Bruce

[Logain]

I suspected Bush Jr.'s administration, heartened by the electoral college overriding the popular vote the last time around, would try something like this.   However, I was hoping that it was just paranoia.

I'm just wondering if you realize that our nation's national elections have been determined by the electoral college for the entire duration of it's history? You do realize that the popular vote has zero impact when it comes to deciding who won?

The electoral college can't "override" the popular vote when the popular vote didn't have priority in the first place.

Here is a good resource to read up on.

I'm sorry but I'm just sick and tired of morons who slept through government class spouting off about things they don't understand.

[daveNYC]

I believe there are a number of states who have passed laws forcing their representatives in the electoral college to vote according to the popular vote in the state.

[ArtificialKid]

So, why would they want to do this?

Possibly they're making a contingency plan for the worst?  You know, what governments are supposed to do?

[Logain]

I believe there are a number of states who have passed laws forcing their representatives in the electoral college to vote according to the popular vote in the state.

I believe you're right, but even so the overall national popular vote is not what determines the election.

Edit:

Besides, I don't remember any electoral college members actually changing their vote during the whole process. What he's most likely referencing is the fact that the national pop vote was for gore while the electoral college came out for bush. I don't recall any reps swinging their votes though.

I am most likely wrong though. Correct me if I am. heh.

[DarkDryad]

To quote a great guy...
Go sell crazy someplace else were all full up here.

[Dark Vengeance]

You guys have it all wrong.

Their real plan is to consistantly equate elections with terror attacks so that come election time they can hit us with "heightened security" in "at risk"  (read:  Left Leaning) districts.  Sent into a frenzy because of the constant Bush Administration fear mongering, people will welcome the aditional security.  The 10+ hour lines at the polling booths in these "at risk" (read: Left Leaning) areas will supress voter turnout in "at risk" (read:  Left Leaning) areas to all new lows, throwing what will look to be a total Kerry landslide in the polls a week ahead of the vote into a very slight electoral college victory for Bush (but not the popular vote, again).

Feel free to tell me all about tin foil hats, I'll bump this thread on November 3rd.

Um, cevik, a CNN poll on 7/12 (shortly after the Edwards announcement) has the race at 50% Kerry, 48% Bush. Margin of error is +/- 3.5%. Hardly a landslide. Kerry's next big push in the polls will come with his nomination at the DNC.

I'd say it'd take at least 65/35 to constitute a landslide, and I don't see a 15% swing between now and November.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[El Gallo]

I think some state's electoral college voters switched sides to Hayes during the big Hayes-Tilden dispute.  I am pretty sure there have been a couple of times when some rogue elector cast their vote for some oddball candidate.

[Daeven]

They're basically saying something along the lines of, "So long as a terrorist threat exists, we cannot have elections."

No geldy, they are saying "if shit blows up we need plans to deal with it.

Nice fearmongering though.

[Dark Vengeance]

Possibly they're making a contingency plan for the worst?  You know, what governments are supposed to do?

No, no, no....can't be that. Not enough moustache-twisting.

Because after all, the administration is "EVIL EVIL SPAWN OF SATAN EATING A LITTER OF STILLBORN PUPPIES WHILE RAPING GRANDMA THROUGH A HOLE DRILLED IN HER LEFT TEMPLE". Haven't you been keeping up with the political discussions around here?

It's a purely partisan opposition anyway. If they didn't create a contingency plan, the left would eat Bush alive if something were to happen....probably claiming that he had something done (or at least intentionally left us vulnerable) so he could steal the election amid all the chaos and confusion.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[El Gallo]

I'd say it'd take at least 65/35 to constitute a landslide, and I don't see a 15% swing between now and November.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

If that's true, I don't ever think there has been a landslide in a Presidental election in US history.  Not even FDR won by that much.

[cevik]

I'd say it'd take at least 65/35 to constitute a landslide, and I don't see a 15% swing between now and November.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

Read more about presidential politics, you are clearly ignorant when it comes to this subject.  Your definition of "landslide" does not remotely intersect with any other sane person's definition of landslide in a presidential election.  My prediction is that Kerry will be up in the polls 53-55% the week before the election, Bush will be hovering at the 40-45% mark, pretty much the lower ceiling of his support, with only people like Dark Vengance and Dark Dryad voting for him (i.e. only the Kool Aid drinkers).  Come election day, there will be the lowest voter turnout in history (due to 10+ hour lines in left leaning districts), but the electorate will be so confident that there will be a Kerry blowout that people will say screw the lines and not vote.  The end result will be hearalded as the lowest voter turnout in recent history, with a final result of around 49% Kerry 48.7% Bush, with Bush narrowly taking the electoral college thanks to extremely narrow wins in Florida and Ohio.  The polling results will be blamed on cell phones and VOIP applications skewing the telephone polling.

Kerry's biggest swing state win will be Oregon, which he'll take by between 10 and 15 points.  Everyone will list Oregon as a blue state for the 2008 election, not realizing that the real reason Oregon went so heavily for Kerry is because we mail our ballots in two weeks ahead of time, so long polling lines do not affect us.  This is also why Bush has canceled almost all of his advertisement in this "swing state", because Rove knows that they can't take the state through their typical means of voter intimidation and they'd rather focus the money elsewhere.

But it doesn't matter, I'll bump this thread in November when the smoke clears and I'll either be right or wrong..

[Nebu]

If that's true, I don't ever think there has been a landslide in a Presidental election in US history.  Not even FDR won by that much.

Without checking the numbers, the Reagan/Mondale election may have been close... linky

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Read about it here.

In essence, the US govt is looking at what would be required to postpone the elections, in case of a terrorist attack.

So, why would they want to do this?  A desperate ploy to hold onto power?  Delay the election until the political climate is more to their advantage?  I'm struggling to find an interpretation that isn't, "We don't want to lose waaaaah."

this whole thread = 90% retards.
If planes blow up the middle school in my area on election day afternoon, then guess what: I CANT VOTE, SHERLOCKS. DEADLINE PASSES ON ELECTION DAY AND I GET PWNED BY TERRERESZT.

unless of course, the government says: "In light of planes blowing up middle school buildings, we will extend the voting deadline and/or create a national 'make-up' day for blowed up districts and allow people the opportunity to drive to an unblowedup school so they can vote in this election."

But I like your theories better - more chickenlittle-ish, which is a much more interesting nursery rhyme than mine.


---
edit: only 90% retards. sorry, I skimmed.

[daveNYC]

If that's true, I don't ever think there has been a landslide in a Presidental election in US history.  Not even FDR won by that much.

Without checking the numbers, the Reagan/Mondale election may have been close... linky

Stupid Gain Publishing pop-ups.  I don't think it was 65/35.  NY, CA, and TX were all between 53 and 63 for Ronnie, no way in hell the rest of the country could swing the average up.

[cevik]

Without checking the numbers, the Reagan/Mondale election may have been close... linky

Nowhere near.

[Nebu]

Without checking the numbers, the Reagan/Mondale election may have been close... linky

Nowhere near.

58.8% to 40.5%... I stand corrected.  Thanks for the link btw, interesting stuff!

[SirBruce]

Also 1972:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1972

Bruce

[Dark Vengeance]

If that's true, I don't ever think there has been a landslide in a Presidental election in US history.  Not even FDR won by that much.

Without checking the numbers, the Reagan/Mondale election may have been close... linky

Looks like 58.8% Reagan in the popular vote.

I suppose I stand corrected on my assessment of what constitues a landslide in the popular vote. Receiving only ~35% seemed like a fairly crushing loss, and so I pulled 65% out of my ass to make the numbers nice and pretty.

Although, looking at landslide elections like FDR's win in 1936 (60.8% to 38.5% to 2.7%), LBJ in 1964 (61.1% to 38.5%), Nixon in 1972 (60.7% to 37.5% to 1.8%), I'm not THAT far off the mark.

Cevik is describing a lead more along the lines of Bush's win in 1988, or Reagan's win in 1980. Impressive, decisive wins to be sure....I just tend to think of "landslide" victories as fairly rare. Based on a ~10% margin of victory in the popular vote, we've had 4 "landslide" victories since 1980, including Clinton in 1996.

*shrug* When you factor in the margin of error on that CNN poll, Bush is in a dead heat with Kerry. To think that he's going to pull even a 10% swing before November is a stretch.

Bring the noise.
Cheers............