[vmpaul]

According to Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

If ever there was a perfect Pol Lounge topic...

Not sure where I stand on this. I can understand looking into contingency plans but not sure if there would be common agreement on what would be acceptable grounds to delay a vote. Or is there?

[f1000]

We need to set up an Internet voting system backed up by mail-in paper ballots. The Internet votes would be used to get a quick tally, and the paper ballots would be used to officially confirm the Internet votes some time later.

Tampering with the voting system (hacking) would result in 20 years in prison, plus a fine of several hundred thousand dollars (minimum).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Not sure where I stand on this. I can understand looking into contingency plans but not sure if there would be common agreement on what would be acceptable grounds to delay a vote. Or is there?

I think it's a good idea. A one week delay would be fine with me.

[Lerkfish]

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ed#post2055033

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm still putting my money on any of the following (in order of likelihood:

1. Osama gets trotted out...as captured or dead. But it has to be within 6 weeks of the election or it will do no good to the popularity polls.
2. Invasion of another ME country. We'll know if this is the case because we'll start getting increasing rhetoric about them harboring terrorists. My guess is Syria, if for no other reason than that strategically they are in the way for the pipeline running from Baghdad to Isreal.
3. Since Rove is in the picture, a particularly nasty whisper campaign against Kerry, like they did to McCain. Look for it to be lower than whale dung in terms of the viciousness of the rumor, requiring Kerry to spend way too much time and effort on damage control.
4. Heightened Homeland security alert colors, a HUGE plot will be thwarted, publicly, and conveniently within 6 weeks of the election.
5. OR, a terrorist attack occurs in great scale, and martial law is announced, with elections either being suspended indefinitely or polling places being patrolled by militia.
6. Diebold and other election machine companies jiggering the software to hand Bush the election, regardless of the public's wishes. Of course, if this happens, we'll not know about it.

[Logic]

Perhaps you could hurry the election up by two days to surprise the terrorists

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Logic:
Perhaps you could hurry the election up by two days to surprise the terrorists

Best idea yet.

[Spheric Harlot]

Just make sure you have your funds siphoned out of the country in time...

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm still putting my money on any of the following (in order of likelihood:

1. Osama gets trotted out...as captured or dead. But it has to be within 6 weeks of the election or it will do no good to the popularity polls.
2. Invasion of another ME country. We'll know if this is the case because we'll start getting increasing rhetoric about them harboring terrorists. My guess is Syria, if for no other reason than that strategically they are in the way for the pipeline running from Baghdad to Isreal.
3. Since Rove is in the picture, a particularly nasty whisper campaign against Kerry, like they did to McCain. Look for it to be lower than whale dung in terms of the viciousness of the rumor, requiring Kerry to spend way too much time and effort on damage control.
4. Heightened Homeland security alert colors, a HUGE plot will be thwarted, publicly, and conveniently within 6 weeks of the election.
5. OR, a terrorist attack occurs in great scale, and martial law is announced, with elections either being suspended indefinitely or polling places being patrolled by militia.
6. Diebold and other election machine companies jiggering the software to hand Bush the election, regardless of the public's wishes. Of course, if this happens, we'll not know about i

I'll put my money on any of those too

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
According to Reuters:


If ever there was a perfect Pol Lounge topic...

Not sure where I stand on this. I can understand looking into contingency plans but not sure if there would be common agreement on what would be acceptable grounds to delay a vote. Or is there?

Shocking. A few weeks ago, I was told this was impossible, and couldn't happen. (Despite the president talking about this over a year ago).

[Lerkfish]

NOTE: there is a religious right component to this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...lay/index.html

please read the ENTIRE article.

what I'm referring to:

Newsweek said the discussions about whether the November 2 election could be postponed started with a recent letter to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from DeForest Soaries Jr., chairman of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

The commission was set up after the disputed 2000 presidential vote to help states deal with logistical problems in their elections.

Soaries, who was appointed by President Bush, is a former New Jersey secretary of state and senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset.

Newsweek reported that Soaries expressed concern that no federal agency had the authority to postpone an election and asked Ridge to ask Congress to give his commission such power.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I think it's a good idea. A one week delay would be fine with me.

Yeah, but based on what scenario? If an attack happened a day before an election? 3 days? A week? A month? And what scale of an attack? I don't know how you'd quantify it but it would have to be pretty disruptive to call off an election.

I think those are the types of decisions need to be made. Should be a bipartisan decision as well. Oh the bellyaching we'll have to be subjected to when one side loses. I don't even want to think of it.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
NOTE: there is a religious right component to this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS...elay/index.html

please read the ENTIRE article.

Ok, I read it. I don't know. Call me naive but I don't see anything sinister in making contingency plans.

[Lerkfish]

we held elections during the Civil war, fer chrissakes.
All Ridge has to do is act like there is a threat, and then postpone the elections, then act like there's a further threat, postpone again...lather, rinse, repeat.

What's sinister is that the commission created to prevent election irregularities requests the power to suspend them altogether.

do you not see the danger?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
NOTE: there is a religious right component to this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...lay/index.html

please read the ENTIRE article.

what I'm referring to:

I've actually heard him speak in person a few times (a very good speaker I might add).

It doesn't suprise me at all.

But yes, what do you expect. Look at who Bush appoints places, all are either ministers, or have other very close affiliations with christian institutions. But then again, the law state elected officials aren't bound to the same laws regarding discrimination. They legally can discriminate based on religion. So no wrongdoing is there.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Yeah, but based on what scenario? If an attack happened a day before an election? 3 days? A week? A month? And what scale of an attack? I don't know how you'd quantify it but it would have to be pretty disruptive to call off an election.

I think those are the types of decisions need to be made. Should be a bipartisan decision as well. Oh the bellyaching we'll have to be subjected to when one side loses. I don't even want to think of it.

Agreed. As for my one week delay position, I'd say that if the attack occurred within 3 days of election day, then we could have the election postponed a week.

As for the scale, I'm thinking that an event that caused some death to civilians in a spectacular way.

Of course, we'd need to define that. Ultimately, however, I think the main purpose of this exercise would be to alert those who may be planning such an attack that "hey, your attack may occur, but it's not going to have the same immediate effect on our elections as the attacks did in Spain."

So I guess what I'm saying is that if one purpose of this discussion is meant to confuse in some way those who may carry out attacks, or to make them pause, then we should continue exploring our options.

However, in a worst case scenario (a major attack that I really don't want to see), I don't think such an election delay should be any longer than a week.

This is such a complex issue.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
we held elections during the Civil war, fer chrissakes.
All Ridge has to do is act like there is a threat, and then postpone the elections, then act like there's a further threat, postpone again...lather, rinse, repeat.

What's sinister is that the commission created to prevent election irregularities requests the power to suspend them altogether.

do you not see the danger?

I see more of a danger in not preparing or discussing the issue. It should be discussed, at least. Don't you think we should look at it before an event happens rather than on the fly or afterward?

If after contemplating, the decision is to go ahead no matter what, then fine. If it's to postpone based on a certain criteria and agreed upon by all parties, then I'm fine with that.

And I agree with you, it'd have to be pretty traumatic to cancel given past history of elections. But what if most of the east coast polling places are put out of commission on election day? Don't you think there has to be some adjustment or contingency?

[spacefreak]

Man, I am torn here. I really want the elections to go on as planned, but after hearing (of all people) Tom Daschle say after his intelligence briefing that what he heard was "startling"... I mean, I can't even imagine what kind of chatter they have tapped into.

Say it's election day, 8 am, and a bunch of polling places are blown to smithereens. In this case, I think an election halt would be necessary.

[UNTeMac]

Vote absentee, you can do it whether you're in the area or not. Might be safer. But please vote!

[Wiskedjak]

In other news: US Mulling How to Provoke an Attack Prior to Nov. Vote.

[BlackGriffen]

I think that this authority should be kept at a state level. The federal government's roll should be to enforce a gag on the results from states that have successfully voted to give those that haven't time to conduct any postponed polls. This has the beneficial side effect of meaning that no official east coast results can be released until the west coast has finished voting. This would only apply to the Presidential election, of course, since all other elections are purely in state affairs.

Some of the reasons I prefer this method include:

• The power to postpone elections temporarily is kept at a local level, making the system more difficult to corrupt.
• States that don't get critically interrupted don't have to redo.
• The side benefit already mentioned.

Even this proposed system has its flaws (eg one state could theoretically tie things up indefinitely - esp given interference by a party locally in power that wants to keep its President in office). This could be ameliorated by putting a release provision that after a week, if the outcome of the election is already decided, then the results will be released irrespective of whether or not the state could get stuff together.

That said, what's being proposed is, AFAIK, unprecedented. I'll rattle off some wars, in one of which the White House was set ablaze and in another the war was being fought just across the Potomac. Please inform me if the major wars hindered any elections:

• War of 1812
• Civil War
• Spanish American War
• World War 1
• World War 2
• Korean War
• Vietnam

Besides that, the public reaction to a terrorist strike would be too difficult to predict. In Spain, the Iraq war was tremendously unpopular, so it was easy to guess that a strike would get those responsible for the war booted. In the US, it could go either way. Especially since both guys have committed to keeping troops in Iraq.

This one sets off my "too much power in one place" alarm. Hell, I'm wondering whether or not this whole thing is constitutional. I'll quote the sections that mention elections, and we'll see.

Article I, Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Article I, Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Article II, Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
[...]
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

I think that's everything. It looks pretty clear to me that that this is a state power, and what few powers are not held by states are, in fact, held by the legislative branch.

I see no reason to change this, and it looks like Bush, Ridge, et al would need a Constitutional amendment for this one, too.

BlackGriffen

[badidea]

Do only al Qaeda attacks count??

[jaiqua]

How convenient for them. Let's build up the hype surrounding an attack, so if there is one, let's play on the fears of the public and nudge them into voting for Bush. They can even have his picture splashed all over the screen saving the US, nice big flag behind his mullet. That should ensure that we see the commander in thief, I mean chief, in all his glory.

Hey, what happens if there is no attack? Hmm, maybe the CIA could orchetrate one, just in case the vote isn't going Bush's way. Could be tricky, but I'm sure they have the experience.


What a load of **** this is. It's blatantly obvious what they are thinking here, it has nothing, obsolutely nothing to with the thoughts of the people, but everything to do with esuring Bush is propped up in power.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I think that's everything. It looks pretty clear to me that that this is a state power, and what few powers are not held by states are, in fact, held by the legislative branch.

Good points, and a good approach. I like the "gag order" idea. The only problem I see is that, if it were polling places that were attacked, and with our insane media coverage, a few early morning attacks on election day could affect turnout even in states that were not host to attacks.

I see no reason to change this, and it looks like Bush, Ridge, et al would need a Constitutional amendment for this one, too.

Yeah, I think that's why Ridge is having Congress look at this issue.

As for the fact that other wars did not hinder the election process, I think this is different in the sense that it would be our elections that are the target of the attack. AFAIK, those other wars didn't feature attacks that were aimed at disrupting our elections.

[dcolton]

1. Lerkfish, with all due respect, you [seem to] have ZERO faith in our government, the American people, or the media. We have one of the greatest systems of checks and balances that prevent your theories from coming into pruition. The only two points that you make that I can mildly see as possible truths is the capture of bin Laden and the 'nasty whisper campaign' - both politics as usual. I wonder if you would apply the same standards to your party/ politician of choice.

2. I agree with BG...but I will also add that a 'terrorist' attack would have the sole purpose of disrupting and influencing the American political process. A contingency plan is a necessity - and I would much rather see the groundwork laid now, by a bipartisan committee that maintains the integrety of our elections.

3. Everyone assumes that a terrorist attack would be beneficial for Bush...why? It could just as easy help to elect Kerry

[badidea]

Originally posted by dcolton:
3. Everyone assumes that a terrorist attack would be beneficial for Bush...why? It could just as easy help to elect Kerry

Well, your right, it could be seen as a total failure in the War against Terror and help Kerry but if you look how popular Bush was after 9/11 and how popular he is now it could help him a lot...!(?)

[dcolton]

Originally posted by badidea:
Well, your right, it could be seen as a total failure in the War against Terror and help Kerry but if you look how popular Bush was after 9/11 and how popular he is now it could help him a lot...!(?)

9/11 was a suprise attack on America. Despite all of the arguments...I believe the majority of Americans believe that it was an attack that could not be prevented. Now that a few years have passed and the US has declared war on terror...and attack on the states could easily be construed as a failure for bush...no? Bush is always criticized and attacked for his policy...another attack , IMO would be a catastrophe for President Bush

[hyteckit]

Oh sh*t! Does this mean the terrorist has won and the US is no safer than it was before the Iraq invasion?

Didn't the Bush Admin said something along the lines of "We shouldn't let terrorist change the way we live our lives and how we run our country, or else the terrorist has won"?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

There was a primary election in New York on 9/11/01. Guess what. It was postponed.

I seem to recall much of the business of the country was postponed.

New York had long since made such contingency plans to postpone elections in the event of a major catastrophic disruption. Nationally, there is no such plan.

Quick, someone break out the tinfoil hats and cook up some crackpot paranoid conspiracies, rather than deal with anything like a rational adult.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by f1000:
We need to set up an Internet voting system backed up by mail-in paper ballots. The Internet votes would be used to get a quick tally, and the paper ballots would be used to officially confirm the Internet votes some time later.

No Internet voting system. Too insecure, and unofficial tallies have never done any good in the past, only creating massive amounts of controversy and discord when the real results didn't match the unofficial tallies. Reliability must be considered more important than speed. If you can get both that's great, but if one must be sacrificed then speed must go.

As for the mail-in system, a basic system already exists: namely, the system of absentee ballots. That system could be expanded to provide something similar to what you've proposed.

Tampering with the voting system (hacking) would result in 20 years in prison, plus a fine of several hundred thousand dollars (minimum).

Agreed. However, such a measure doesn't do any good by itself, because there's no safeguard in place for when the law fails (i.e. someone breaks it). How do we deal with a hacked election?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
1. Lerkfish, with all due respect, you [seem to] have ZERO faith in our government, the American people, or the media. We have one of the greatest systems of checks and balances that prevent your theories from coming into pruition. The only two points that you make that I can mildly see as possible truths is the capture of bin Laden and the 'nasty whisper campaign' - both politics as usual. I wonder if you would apply the same standards to your party/ politician of choice.

The system of elections always taking place is a MAJOR component of 'checks and balances'.

When you remove one thing from a scale, the balance is off. That's the definition of the system.

Once you remove a component, it no longer works properly... hence the reason this is disturbing. It deletes the 'checks and balances' that work so well in our country.

No matter how you look at it, the scale tips. No more balance.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The system of elections always taking place is a MAJOR component of 'checks and balances'.

When you remove one thing from a scale, the balance is off. That's the definition of the system.

Once you remove a component, it no longer works properly... hence the reason this is disturbing. It deletes the 'checks and balances' that work so well in our country.

No matter how you look at it, the scale tips. No more balance.

Even if it is a bipartisan decision. We aren't talking about no elections...we are talking about postponing elections in case of a catastrophic event. I can't see how postponing an election tips and scale of checks and balances. As a matter of fact, if it is a bipartisan decision, I would say that it strengthens the system of checks and balances.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Even if it is a bipartisan decision. We aren't talking about no elections...we are talking about postponing elections in case of a catastrophic event. I can't see how postponing an election tips and scale of checks and balances. As a matter of fact, if it is a bipartisan decision, I would say that it strengthens the system of checks and balances.

But the decision will lay with congress, which is also succeptable to swinging, just like the whitehouse.

All you need is a president who is of the same party as the majority of the congress.

That's far from an impossible sinareo.


Our system right now says that elections must happen on schedule, no if's, and's or but's.

Think about it: Kennedy got shot during the cold war, VP took office... The nation still progressed. It wasn't the end of the world.

Reagan was shot and put on his ass for a few weeks... nation progressed.

Bush passed out from a pretzel... nation progressed.


Our government is setup so no position is irreplacable. We have redundancies within our own political system to ensure it all works out. There's no acceptable reason to hold an election from taking place. The nation is prepared for a change in leadership at any time.

If the nation isn't prepaired, we have a whole other issue on our hands. That means our nation needs to sitdown and figure out what went wrong over the years and correct it ASAP.

Our nation was structured so we can loose our leader, and still function smoothly. That was brilliance on behalf of the founding fathers. If we broke it, we should fix it. Not take a sledgehammer to the system.

If our government doesn't live up to it's promises and at a minimum meet it's prior performance (if not exceed)... we need to fix THAT.


If we really go ahead with this... what will happen? Just attacks on interval. Even from within the US by political extremists. Just to delay.

That's a fundimental break in our system.

Don't need to fix a fault tolerant system. If you do, you fix the fault that broke the redundancy.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
But the decision will lay with congress, which is also succeptable to swinging, just like the whitehouse.

All you need is a president who is of the same party as the majority of the congress.

That's far from an impossible sinareo.


Our system right now says that elections must happen on schedule, no if's, and's or but's.

Think about it: Kennedy got shot during the cold war, VP took office... The nation still progressed. It wasn't the end of the world.

Reagan was shot and put on his ass for a few weeks... nation progressed.

Bush passed out from a pretzel... nation progressed.


Our government is setup so no position is irreplacable. We have redundancies within our own political system to ensure it all works out. There's no acceptable reason to hold an election from taking place. The nation is prepared for a change in leadership at any time.

If the nation isn't prepaired, we have a whole other issue on our hands. That means our nation needs to sitdown and figure out what went wrong over the years and correct it ASAP.

Our nation was structured so we can loose our leader, and still function smoothly. That was brilliance on behalf of the founding fathers. If we broke it, we should fix it. Not take a sledgehammer to the system.

If our government doesn't live up to it's promises and at a minimum meet it's prior performance (if not exceed)... we need to fix THAT.


If we really go ahead with this... what will happen? Just attacks on interval. Even from within the US by political extremists. Just to delay.

That's a fundimental break in our system.

Don't need to fix a fault tolerant system. If you do, you fix the fault that broke the redundancy.

You make some decent points...but, we are talking about catastrophic events...designed to do more damage than basic death and murder - we are talking about an attack on US soil by a confirmed enemy when we are most vulnerable...the change of leadership. Would you rather have a lame duck president (or congress) excercising authority that could result in the deaths of many American soldiers and civilians or a president with full authority and support to lead our nation against our enemies?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You make some decent points...but, we are talking about catastrophic events...designed to do more damage than basic death and murder - we are talking about an attack on US soil by a confirmed enemy when we are most vulnerable...the change of leadership. Would you rather have a lame duck president (or congress) excercising authority that could result in the deaths of many American soldiers and civilians or a president with full authority and support to lead our nation against our enemies?

The change of leadership has never before proven to be a time of vulerability. In fact, it's proved to not be (look at the past).

If in fact, there is legitimate reason to believe there is a vulnerability (which there isn't unless the conservatives backing this bill would be willing to suggest the government's checks and balances are broken)... then we should fix the redundancy.


Otherewise we run into the issue if a president is killed. He's a target, he flies often, he's in a car often... it's possible. We'd run into this same problem then. And we can't delay a presidential death. I'd like to see congress pull that one off.

The president has full authority until his final hour in office. We've proven that (presidential pardons come to mind). There's no question that our nation has a very smooth transition of government. Even in messy cases (2000 elections). The president can even coordinate with the new president (and is supposed to hold meetings on how to transition). There's no reason why a president couldn't go as far as request declaration of war in their final hour of office if it were necessary. And if it's deemed necessary by congress (checks and balances)... it will happen. Our nation is structured so that the presidential office can be completely eliminated without stalling our government (though part of the checks and balances would be removed, as it's 1 giant branch).

1. It doesn't fix the problem.
2. No evidence to show there is a problem.
3. It violates a crucial aspect of our government: checks and balances

As long as the physical capability exists to vote, it should happen as usual on time. In the case where it's physically impossible, accomidations should be made to allow voting to take place the moment it becomes possible. And that's already the practice. No change needed. This discussion taking place in our government would give more room than that... completely unnecessary.

If the feds want to discuss how to make sure it takes place on time, that's a different story.

I don't see one positive to implementing this. Just a bandaid on a non-existant laceration. If the wound exists, it's useless, if it doesn't, it's irrlevent. In any case, this is just an attempt to idle our government and remove 'checks and balances' while they attempt to look proactive.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
The system of elections always taking place is a MAJOR component of 'checks and balances'.

When you remove one thing from a scale, the balance is off. That's the definition of the system.

Once you remove a component, it no longer works properly... hence the reason this is disturbing. It deletes the 'checks and balances' that work so well in our country.

No matter how you look at it, the scale tips. No more balance.

The cycle of elections is an important safeguard, but it is not part of the system of thecks and balances. Checks and balances deal with the interaction of the three branches of government, not election law.

The cycle of checks and balances is part of the system of limited government that has (at least in theory) served us so well. That said, it is entirely possible that some kind of catastrophe could force a delay. About the only thing I could think of that could possibly do this would be the bombing of the House of Representatives (which certifies the final counts), but that's about it.

The point is, this is a hole in our system. Any good system has to be designed to fail, that is, when something goes wrong -particularly something as core as the cycle of elections- there needs to be some hard, defined system in place to repair it. Our government is designed quite well as far as failsafes go, but holes still pop up every so often, and when discovered they need to be fixed.

[itai195]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I see no reason to change this, and it looks like Bush, Ridge, et al would need a Constitutional amendment for this one, too.

BlackGriffen

*Brushing off some constitutional knowledge I haven't used in years*...

I think you're right about the states rights issue, but I don't think a Constitutional amendment would be necessary. The national election takes place on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November by act of Congress; setting this date is a power granted to Congress in Article 2. Additionally Congress gets to choose the date the electors actually vote (I believe it's usually in December), and by the 20th Amendment the Presidential and Vice Presidential terms end by January 20th, so clearly there would have to be a successor by then. In the case that they want to delay the election in order to extend that term, it seems you're right and they'd need an amendment. But a one or two week delay wouldn't require one.

Personally, I don't have any major issues with some contingency planning in case a short delay is necessary. I don't really have a problem with it, because the Constitutional safeguard is in place (that Jan 20 deadline). Now, if we start talking about a Constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to delay the end of a presidential term past Jan 20 in the event of a crisis, I'd have problems with that... I can't think of a catastrophy that would necessitate such a lengthy delay and I think that's too much power to give to any branch of the federal government.

[davesimondotcom]

I don't think there should be a delay, nor do I think they can - after all, isn't the day of the election set as the first tuesday in November, regardless?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by dcolton:
You make some decent points...but, we are talking about catastrophic events...designed to do more damage than basic death and murder - we are talking about an attack on US soil by a confirmed enemy when we are most vulnerable...the change of leadership.

In all truth, the change of leadership does not happen in Nov. As noted above, electors are selected in Nov. Electors vote in Dec. Change of leadership occurs in Jan.

Judging from what I quoted, the states have control over the Nov goings on, congress controls the Dec one, and the Jan is set in an amendment I didn't quote.

Granted, 9/11 shut things down for a day all over, but I still feel that the individual states should decide. They should also be required to decide before seeing any returns. Once returns are in, I don't think they should be allowed to call "do-overs." There are situations where I admit it would be best, but the ability to too ripe for abuse.

BlackGriffen

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
...Granted, 9/11 shut things down for a day all over...

Funny you say this.

Most people I know working in NYC on 9/11, did work at least part of the day after (it's not like it was practical to attempt to get out with everything closed). And just about all went in the next day. With the exception of downtown of course.

What I always found comical (if not sad), is that most West Coast offices were shut down 9/12/01. NYC it attacked, and most went to work the next day... but LA needed the day off. Never quite made sense to me. Come to think of it, I only know of a few who didn't go to work the next day. Most did.

Just shows the mentality of New Yorkers who just don't quit... and west coast looking for a day off to spend on the beach.

Originally posted by Millennium:
The cycle of elections is an important safeguard, but it is not part of the system of thecks and balances. Checks and balances deal with the interaction of the three branches of government, not election law.

The cycle of checks and balances is part of the system of limited government that has (at least in theory) served us so well. That said, it is entirely possible that some kind of catastrophe could force a delay. About the only thing I could think of that could possibly do this would be the bombing of the House of Representatives (which certifies the final counts), but that's about it.

The point is, this is a hole in our system. Any good system has to be designed to fail, that is, when something goes wrong -particularly something as core as the cycle of elections- there needs to be some hard, defined system in place to repair it. Our government is designed quite well as far as failsafes go, but holes still pop up every so often, and when discovered they need to be fixed.

Checks and balances do really apply to our election laws. Think of how it's done. The 2 other branches do see that the third branch is properly handled. We saw this very well in the 2000 elections where the Supreme court played an active role, rather than sit ready for action.

Routine elections have served our nation rather well. They keep our nation prepaired to change leadership. Perhaps that's why we've handled it so well... in many countries the 2000 election would have resulted in riots, and perhaps even martial law. In the US we only had a few burnt cars and fights in the streets. I don't even think state police responded to the handful of drunks who wanted a reason to fight. The disturbance was that small.


If we aren't prepaired to do elections... we should be fixing that problem... not this bandaid.

For example, giving the Senate the ability to certify the votes should the house of reps be unable to perform the task. That would make sense... that adds redundancy. To have a few extra organizations in there, such as govenors of all states as the next set of people... that makes sense. Again, that accomplishes something.

But to just unplug the system isn't adding redundancy.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

What I always found comical (if not sad), is that most West Coast offices were shut down 9/12/01. NYC it attacked, and most went to work the next day... but LA needed the day off. Never quite made sense to me.

On 9/11 and directly thereafter, LA (among other major cities) was seen a huge potential target, and no one in the nation knew if more attacks were coming or not. There were reports and chatter like wildfire about more attacks in the form of bomb-laden trucks and even barges.

LA's numerous high tourist-traffic areas and spread out high-rise centers were completely unprepared for any such attacks and it was better to err on the side of caution in those areas until better protective measures could be put in place. (For instance, many areas have since been retrofitted to be bomb-truck proof) So of course, people didn’t go to work in high target potential areas like Hollywood, downtown LA, the Burbank Studio areas, Universal City, etc. on the 11th and possibly the 12th, but most of the city was back to business as usual as quickly as any other big city that was seen as a high target possibility.

I actually went to work on the morning of the 11th, but Hollywood looked like a near-deserted combat zone. Most people arrived at work and were told to turn around and go home.

Maybe some with their 20/20 hindsight view of everything think they had it all figured out, but those of us who don’t need someone’s dumb slanted documentary to tell us what actually happened only two years ago, remember that there was much uncertainty during the actual events. No one had any crystal balls, and no one knew if the events of 9/11 were just the opening shots of further attack.

The ironic thing is, that as usual, had extra precaution NOT been taken, and something had happened in LA or any other city that was a potential target, many would be here blathering on about how more should have been done to prevent it, and how of course it was all Bush’s fault.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No Internet voting system. Too insecure, and unofficial tallies have never done any good in the past, only creating massive amounts of controversy and discord when the real results didn't match the unofficial tallies. Reliability must be considered more important than speed. If you can get both that's great, but if one must be sacrificed then speed must go.

Now may not be the time for the gov't to rush a hack job into service, but I believe that an Internet voting system can be made that's as secure as any physical system in use today.

Each Internet vote would have to be matched up to a paper ballot coded with a Social Security number (or some other unique identifier) in order to be offically counted. Nobody can mail-in a paper ballot unless he voted on the Internet (each online voter will print out a paper ballot that contains a special code identifying the ballot as unique and legitimate), and anybody who voted on the Internet must postmark this paper ballot within a week of election day. Official results would be tallied by the end of the month.

Agreed. However, such a measure doesn't do any good by itself, because there's no safeguard in place for when the law fails (i.e. someone breaks it). How do we deal with a hacked election?

That's what the paper-ballots would be for. They would confirm that a vote had been made on the Internet, and would basically be unhackable (unless someone tampered with the automated ballot readers).

I guess what you're worried about is a massive attack that disrupts the entire voting system across the continent. The fact that elections are biennial affairs should reduce the opportunities for hackers to figure out how to break into the system since the voting system would only be online on each Election Day.

I doubt that any system can prevent hackers from disrupting an election. Heck, the Chinese could simply EMP bomb us on Election Day. My system would at least prevent hackers from surreptitiously altering the outcome of elections without anybody knowing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ed#post2055033

Lerk you throw enough darts, you are bound to hit a point now and then.

And you throw enough darts.

BTW what was being said here and your prediction is a bit different.

OR, a terrorist attack occurs in great scale, and martial law is announced, with elections either being suspended indefinitely or polling places being patrolled by militia.

Your extreme paranoid version isn't the same.

[itai195]

Originally posted by f1000:
Now may not be the time for the gov't to rush a hack job into service, but I believe that an Internet voting system can be made that's as secure as any physical system in use today.

Internet-only voting would disfranchise much of the population.

[f1000]

Originally posted by itai195:
Internet-only voting would disfranchise much of the population.

Not if voting kiosks are set up in the same places polling booths are today.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk you throw enough darts, you are bound to hit a point now and then.

And you throw enough darts.

BTW what was being said here and your prediction is a bit different.

OR, a terrorist attack occurs in great scale, and martial law is announced, with elections either being suspended indefinitely or polling places being patrolled by militia.

Your extreme paranoid version isn't the same.

Paranoia is exactly why there are so many checks and balances in the American government. Unfortunately, martial law offers a huge loop hole for any government with the opportunity, or the ability to create such opportunity, to use it. The "War on Terror", and it's lack of clear definition and ability to generate more terrorism simply by fighting it, could provide such an opportunity.

[itai195]

Originally posted by f1000:
Not if voting kiosks are set up in the same places polling booths are today.

Okay, but what would that do to prevent terrorist attacks from causing election delays? If the problem is people not wanting to gather in public polling places after an attack, it doesn't seem they'd be any more willing to do so if Internet balloting were in place.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk you throw enough darts, you are bound to hit a point now and then.

And you throw enough darts.

BTW what was being said here and your prediction is a bit different.

OR, a terrorist attack occurs in great scale, and martial law is announced, with elections either being suspended indefinitely or polling places being patrolled by militia.

Your extreme paranoid version isn't the same.

There is still time for my prediction to come true...not november yet.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
There is still time for my prediction to come true...not november yet.

I bet you are hoping and crossing your fingers!!!

Like I said, you throw enough darts, some are going to stick. That isn't impressive.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I bet you are hoping and crossing your fingers!!!

Like I said, you throw enough darts, some are going to stick. That isn't impressive.

nope, I'd much rather be wrong. I just see the handwriting on the wall. They wouldn't be allowing this speculation out in public unless it was something they ALREADY intended to do.

But you should hope I'm right: that way your hero gets to be king. And you can be part of the next Reich.

and unfortunately, my track record has been accurate.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
nope, I'd much rather be wrong. I just see the handwriting on the wall. They wouldn't be allowing this speculation out in public unless it was something they ALREADY intended to do.

Yeah it's a big conspiracy! Just like giving Iraq it's ability to run itself a day earlier than said was just Bush giving up early, and not them trying to pose a surprise! I understand Lerk.

But you should hope I'm right: that way your hero gets to be king. And you can be part of the next Reich.

Eh, my hero is always King. As far as the next Reich, you'll have to ask Hillary about that one.

[Spliffdaddy]

"...and unfortunately, my track record has been accurate."

excuse me?

"Accurate"?

Maybe your *track record* has been accurate, but so far you're 0 and 3 on the three prong theory.

Too bad your predictions aren't accurate - but you can claim your "track record" is accurate, because that doesn't mean a thing.