U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

[Col. Crackpot]

just a little reminder: 9/11/01 was Mayoral Election Day in New York City. Guess what they did?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

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,

Short of actually changing the Constitution, changing the date of the elections is illegal. So Ridge and the others are (if this story is true) conspiring to break the law.

If this story is true, it should tell you something about how politicians think. However unlikely and illegal it might be, the taste of power does not diminish easily. Dictators and tyrants have always tried to use fear and other criminal tatics to stay in power. This is just another attempt, even if it is a contingency plan.

As you all said, the constitution forbids if. Obviously the polticians don't give two shits about it.

[MKSheppard]

Short of actually changing the Constitution, changing the date of the elections is illegal. So Ridge and the others are (if this story is true) conspiring to break the law.

As someone remarked so famously, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

They won't change the constitution, I imagine they'd have a bill passed
in congress, and then countersigned by the Supremes as a one time event
"due to times of extreme national duress, delaying the election by 1 week"

[Elfdart]

As someone remarked so famously, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

That was Robert Jackson debunking the claim that the Second Amendment gave private citizens the right to raise their own armies equipped with any weapons they wanted. Bad comparison. The date of FEDERAL elections (so no, a mayoral election isn't covered) is set in stone. The fact that Ridge and Co. are willing to break the law (again, assuming this report is true) should make anyone who believes in the rule of law smell a rat.

[Elfdart]

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,

Short of actually changing the Constitution, changing the date of the elections is illegal. So Ridge and the others are (if this story is true) conspiring to break the law.

If this story is true, it should tell you something about how politicians think. However unlikely and illegal it might be, the taste of power does not diminish easily. Dictators and tyrants have always tried to use fear and other criminal tatics to stay in power. This is just another attempt, even if it is a contingency plan.

As you all said, the constitution forbids if. Obviously the polticians don't give two shits about it.

The Constitution is turning ito the Balk Rule in baseball: something occasionally mentioned in passing and only then to point out that it's never enforced.

[MKSheppard]

As someone remarked so famously, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

That was Robert Jackson debunking the claim that the Second Amendment gave private citizens the right to raise their own armies equipped with any weapons they wanted.

Wasn't that the 1st Amendment case about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?

[Elfdart]

As someone remarked so famously, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

That was Robert Jackson debunking the claim that the Second Amendment gave private citizens the right to raise their own armies equipped with any weapons they wanted.

Wasn't that the 1st Amendment case about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?

That was Oliver Wendell Holmes, justifying the persecution of anyone Palmer (Wilson's version of Ashcroft -only not as cool or hip, but a better singer) thought was a "traitor" back in WW1 -and it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If a theatre is on fire and someone who notices doesn't raise the alarm, he's an asshole and if people are injured or killed because they weren't warned by said asshole, he should be held responsible. Not only did Holmes justify locking up people without due process, he gave us the most cretinous cliche in the history of man.

[J]

Short of actually changing the Constitution, changing the date of the elections is illegal. So Ridge and the others are (if this story is true) conspiring to break the law.

The way I see it they're just doing some contingency planning, what one chooses to read into it is up to them. To me it's just like all those wargam plans and invasion scenarios which the military drew up over the years, they're "just in case" plans which get filed somewhere to gather dust until they're truly needed. Or would you rather have the shit hit the fan on Nov 2nd and watch as the entire government acts like a chicken with its head cut off and thrashes the country to pieces in the process?

[Elfdart]

Short of actually changing the Constitution, changing the date of the elections is illegal. So Ridge and the others are (if this story is true) conspiring to break the law.

The way I see it they're just doing some contingency planning, what one chooses to read into it is up to them. To me it's just like all those wargam plans and invasion scenarios which the military drew up over the years, they're "just in case" plans which get filed somewhere to gather dust until they're truly needed. Or would you rather have the shit hit the fan on Nov 2nd and watch as the entire government acts like a chicken with its head cut off and thrashes the country to pieces in the process?

If it's so important, then change the fucking Constitution! They did that already for cases when a President is disabled, rather than killed. But when the supreme law states when the election shall take place, some cabinet officer who tries to change that needs to be horsewhipped.

There's a HUGE difference between war planning (the Constitution allows war, after all) and changing the elections, which the highest law does NOT allow.

[RogueIce]

This is the only thing I've seen about Presidential elections in the Consituiton (concerning when it must be held):

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.

So, as far as I can see, November 2nd isn't set in stone by the Constitution. The actual date can be set by Congress. So...it could be done, in theory.

[RedImperator]

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The day of the election is NOT set in stone by the Constitution. Only the date that the President's term ends is set, by the 20th Amendment. Congress has the right to change the date. Whether it has the right to delegate the power to postpone the election in case of an emergency to the Executive is another question.

[RogueIce]

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The day of the election is NOT set in stone by the Constitution. Only the date that the President's term ends is set, by the 20th Amendment. Congress has the right to change the date. Whether it has the right to delegate the power to postpone the election in case of an emergency to the Executive is another question.

Beat ya to it.

[RedImperator]

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The day of the election is NOT set in stone by the Constitution. Only the date that the President's term ends is set, by the 20th Amendment. Congress has the right to change the date. Whether it has the right to delegate the power to postpone the election in case of an emergency to the Executive is another question.

Beat ya to it.

That's what I get for double checking my research, I suppose.

[Elfdart]

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The day of the election is NOT set in stone by the Constitution. Only the date that the President's term ends is set, by the 20th Amendment. Congress has the right to change the date. Whether it has the right to delegate the power to postpone the election in case of an emergency to the Executive is another question.

You're right. I had thought the election itself was covered. But Tom Ridge is not Congress, is he? Besides, there's something fishy about scheduling the election for one date and then changing it if something happens. The Constitution doesn't mention "do-overs" when it comes to voting. It's practically an invitation for an attack because the bombers or whatever would now KNOW that they not only can fuck up the elections, but that they undoubtedly WOULD. What's to keep them from bombing again and again and keep postponing the vote? Monkeying with the election date is a big can of worms.

[RedImperator]

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The day of the election is NOT set in stone by the Constitution. Only the date that the President's term ends is set, by the 20th Amendment. Congress has the right to change the date. Whether it has the right to delegate the power to postpone the election in case of an emergency to the Executive is another question.

You're right. I had thought the election itself was covered. But Tom Ridge is not Congress, is he? Besides, there's something fishy about scheduling the election for one date and then changing it if something happens. The Constitution doesn't mention "do-overs" when it comes to voting. It's practically an invitation for an attack because the bombers or whatever would now KNOW that they not only can fuck up the elections, but that they undoubtedly WOULD. What's to keep them from bombing again and again and keep postponing the vote? Monkeying with the election date is a big can of worms.

An attack on election day would be an enormous clusterfuck no matter who was in charge or what they did. Consider that if 911 happened on 11/2 of this year instead, the polls would have been open on the East Coast for more than an hour before the second plane hit, only open for a few minutes in the midwest and closed everywhere else. What do you do then? Keep the polls open in the middle of a national emergency, knowing that's going to screw with turnout and expose millions of people to followup attacks? Postpone the election? What happens to the votes already cast? Absolute chaos no matter what you do, and if it's not a landslide for one candidate or the other, the controversy afterwards will make Florida in 2000 look like a tie vote in an elementary school student council election.

[Elfdart]

The day of the election is NOT set in stone by the Constitution. Only the date that the President's term ends is set, by the 20th Amendment. Congress has the right to change the date. Whether it has the right to delegate the power to postpone the election in case of an emergency to the Executive is another question.

You're right. I had thought the election itself was covered. But Tom Ridge is not Congress, is he? Besides, there's something fishy about scheduling the election for one date and then changing it if something happens. The Constitution doesn't mention "do-overs" when it comes to voting. It's practically an invitation for an attack because the bombers or whatever would now KNOW that they not only can fuck up the elections, but that they undoubtedly WOULD. What's to keep them from bombing again and again and keep postponing the vote? Monkeying with the election date is a big can of worms.

An attack on election day would be an enormous clusterfuck no matter who was in charge or what they did. Consider that if 911 happened on 11/2 of this year instead, the polls would have been open on the East Coast for more than an hour before the second plane hit, only open for a few minutes in the midwest and closed everywhere else. What do you do then? Keep the polls open in the middle of a national emergency, knowing that's going to screw with turnout and expose millions of people to followup attacks? Postpone the election? What happens to the votes already cast? Absolute chaos no matter what you do, and if it's not a landslide for one candidate or the other, the controversy afterwards will make Florida in 2000 look like a tie vote in an elementary school student council election.

I would say continue with the election. It's not a very good option (danger to voters is an obvious problem), it's just a lot less shitty than the other options. As it stands now, Al-Queda has no way of knowing how much they could screw up the elections. If Congress or Ridge comes forward and says they're willing to postpone the elections in event of terrorism, isn't that a guarantee for a whole series of attacks? If I were Osama and got wind of such a thing, I'd immediately order a series of attacks -no matter what the losses. It's too good to pass up.

[Rogue 9]

That was Oliver Wendell Holmes, justifying the persecution of anyone Palmer (Wilson's version of Ashcroft -only not as cool or hip, but a better singer) thought was a "traitor" back in WW1 -and it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If a theatre is on fire and someone who notices doesn't raise the alarm, he's an asshole and if people are injured or killed because they weren't warned by said asshole, he should be held responsible. Not only did Holmes justify locking up people without due process, he gave us the most cretinous cliche in the history of man.

Erm... You're a dumbass. The idea was that you can't falsely sound the fire alarm in a crowded theater and then claim free speech when prosecuted for the ensuing unnecessary stampede. If there really is a fire then of course you sound the alarm! But if there is not, and you scream "FIRE!" at the top of your lungs, and people die as a result, free speech does not protect you. That is what Holmes was referring to. Not anything about not warning people about a real fire and letting them die.

[RedImperator]

I would say continue with the election. It's not a very good option (danger to voters is an obvious problem), it's just a lot less shitty than the other options. As it stands now, Al-Queda has no way of knowing how much they could screw up the elections. If Congress or Ridge comes forward and says they're willing to postpone the elections in event of terrorism, isn't that a guarantee for a whole series of attacks? If I were Osama and got wind of such a thing, I'd immediately order a series of attacks -no matter what the losses. It's too good to pass up.

And what if keeping the polls open during the emergency changes the outcome of the vote? Again, pretending September 11 happened on the day of a presidential election, what if the chaos in New York City suppressed turnout to the point that New York state went Republican instead of Democrat (a plausible outcome, since New York City is Democrat by a considerable margin and large enough that it can swing the entire state if the turnout is high enough). That's a 66 electoral vote swing in a state that should have been a Democratic lock--more than enough to throw an election to Bush.

What if local officials panic and close the polls without authorization? What if a whole state does that? What about people who are stranded outside their home districts and unable to get to the polls? What about the millions of possible voters who would have voted but decide to stay home?

An election day attack is going to change results no matter what because it's going to force the voters to change their priorities. Judging by the tendency of Americans to rally around the President in times of disaster, I would predict it would result in a Republican landslide (this is no comment on Bush--were this Gore's reelection we're talking about, I think the result would be the same). That much is unavoidable and there's nothing shaky about voters changing their minds at the last minute. But what will it do for the winning candidate if it becomes clear he won because the events of the day functioned to disenfranchise millions of voters? And what if hundreds or thousands of them get killed because they're out gathering at polling stations while the country is under attack?

[Durandal]

I would say continue with the election. It's not a very good option (danger to voters is an obvious problem), it's just a lot less shitty than the other options. As it stands now, Al-Queda has no way of knowing how much they could screw up the elections. If Congress or Ridge comes forward and says they're willing to postpone the elections in event of terrorism, isn't that a guarantee for a whole series of attacks? If I were Osama and got wind of such a thing, I'd immediately order a series of attacks -no matter what the losses. It's too good to pass up.

That sounds like a horrendous idea. Better to just hold an emergency session of Congress and reschedule the election to, say, a week later, tentatively. All votes cast will be basically forgotten, and a "clean" election will be held the following Tuesday.

If the chaos hasn't died down by then, then reschedule it again. The voters would not put up with too much delay (rescheduling it twice in a row or more would piss off a lot of people), so I don't think we have to worry about Congress postponing the election perpetually.

Now please explain what shortcomings this scenario has that will be addressed by your political version of "The show must go on."

[Master of Ossus]

If something serious happens, it's much better to call of the election and have it again in three days or a week, especially since the actual transitions of power (as mandated by the delayed elections) would almost certainly happen at the same time. Delaying an ELECTION isn't that bad. Delaying the transition of power is much worse, and I imagine that the first action would hold up in the courts while the second action would not.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Exactly. They could delay an election all they wanted, but the second Bush decides to hold power "for the duration of the emergency" and there's NOT a Posleen B-Dec landing in Virginia, I'm voting for John "Easter Island" Kerry.

What's wrong with planning for emergencies?

[JME2]

Can't delay the vote. It has to happen Nov 2nd. It's teh Law.

Thanks, Shep. The CONSTITUTION states when the election is to take place, NOT Congress or anyone else. If a city is attacked -even blown up- the voting should proceed as planned. Anything else reeks of the kind of bullshit we see in banana republics, when some sort of incident is contrived just in time to stall or cancel the voting.

For all the tough talk about how people would rally around a president if we were attacked... I wouldn't bet the rent money on it. It could just as easily create a backlash against the Pres.

As I have said before, when has Bush let the law stand in his way?

[Elfdart]

That was Oliver Wendell Holmes, justifying the persecution of anyone Palmer (Wilson's version of Ashcroft -only not as cool or hip, but a better singer) thought was a "traitor" back in WW1 -and it's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. If a theatre is on fire and someone who notices doesn't raise the alarm, he's an asshole and if people are injured or killed because they weren't warned by said asshole, he should be held responsible. Not only did Holmes justify locking up people without due process, he gave us the most cretinous cliche in the history of man.

Erm... You're a dumbass. The idea was that you can't falsely sound the fire alarm in a crowded theater and then claim free speech when prosecuted for the ensuing unnecessary stampede. If there really is a fire then of course you sound the alarm! But if there is not, and you scream "FIRE!" at the top of your lungs, and people die as a result, free speech does not protect you. That is what Holmes was referring to. Not anything about not warning people about a real fire and letting them die.

I was being somewhat facetious. Maybe I should bring back the disclaimer "*" . In any event, take it up with Justice Holmes, since he didn't add the caveat of FALSELY yelling "FIRE". I was trying to point out that his straw man argument was used to justify police state measures and that it's a rather stupid cliche.

What kind of police state measures? Movie producer Robert Goldstein got a ten-year prison sentence under the Espionage Act (aka the Sedition Act), which Holmes was shilling for. What did Goldstein do? Did he use the frames of his films to give away troop movements? Spy for Germany? Sabotage? Here's what he did: He made a movie that took place during the American Revolution that portrayed the British as the villains! Ten years because of assholes like Holmes and his bullshit fire in a crowded theatre argument. Fuck Oliver Wendell Holmes and his burning theatre argument.

[Rogue 9]

If Bush tries to permanently seize power (which I very much doubt he'll do) and he isn't shot/arrested on the spot (which I very much doubt he wouldn't be) and Congress and enough of the military go along with it (which I very much doubt they would) then its time for a counterrevolution to restore the Constitution and I'll be first in line to start one. However, I'll give the chance of that happening a generous .00001% That's just too much stupidity to be believed right there. Never happen.

[Elfdart]

I would say continue with the election. It's not a very good option (danger to voters is an obvious problem), it's just a lot less shitty than the other options. As it stands now, Al-Queda has no way of knowing how much they could screw up the elections. If Congress or Ridge comes forward and says they're willing to postpone the elections in event of terrorism, isn't that a guarantee for a whole series of attacks? If I were Osama and got wind of such a thing, I'd immediately order a series of attacks -no matter what the losses. It's too good to pass up.

That sounds like a horrendous idea. Better to just hold an emergency session of Congress and reschedule the election to, say, a week later, tentatively. All votes cast will be basically forgotten, and a "clean" election will be held the following Tuesday.

If the chaos hasn't died down by then, then reschedule it again. The voters would not put up with too much delay (rescheduling it twice in a row or more would piss off a lot of people), so I don't think we have to worry about Congress postponing the election perpetually.

Now please explain what shortcomings this scenario has that will be addressed by your political version of "The show must go on."

Let's say Osama hits us hard at noon on election day -3,000 killed. Congress then reschedules the election for the next Tuesday. Wouldn't Al-Queda try to hit us again in seven days just to see if they could cause another delay? Wouldn't others try to pile on, knowing that Osama would get the blame?

As I said before, if I was Osama, I would DEFINITELY order more attacks, no matter how many losses I took. To fuck up a US election once would be a coup. To do it over and over would be a masterstroke. This whole business of election do-overs is like a giant "KICK ME" sign on our backs. It's an invitation for more attacks.

It takes a long time to prepare for a presidential election. To reschedule the whole thing on such short notice is going to be utter chaos. The voter registries alone would be more fucked up than a football bat. What do we do about absentee ballots? Overseas ballots? The only delays that I think would work would be local, or statewide rescheduling. For example, if Los Angeles and Chicago were hit, only the votes in those two areas would be rescheduled. The elections in the rest of the country should stand as is.