Delaying the election: Good or bad idea?
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
If there is a tangible threat that would interfere with people's willingness to show up to vote, then yes, it should be delayed until that immediate, tangible threat can be addressed. Notice I say immediate threat - not just a maybe. Think about it: Let's say there's an immediate risk to voters in a heavily democratic section of a big democratic state (e.g. California, New York, etc...). Would it be fair to hold nationwide elections if those populations were probably going to be afraid to show up and vote? I don't think it would be fair at all. That being said, I cannot stress enough that it should be for an immediate, known threat that will influence a significant portion of voters, not some 'we have vague intelligence that something might happen in the next four months' type of deal. It is responsible to develop a contigency plan for that case, and it is also prudent to take immediate action to figure out how to operate polling places so that they are not at risk to possible terrorist disruptions that would occur nearer to election time, so as to lessen the risk for the need of postponed elections. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
no. but if conditions are dangerous (ie. gas leak after an attack) or difficult (polling places are inaccessible), concessions must be made. here's a somewhat related article: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/mann.htm[^] of course, the SCOTUS has recently determined that the deadlines for Federal elections are set in stone. so it would be unfortunately interesting to see them tackle that issue. Software | Cleek
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
No, I don't think the threat of an attack is worth postponing the election. In particular, becasue of the reasons that are being floated - the Spanish terrorist incident and subsequent election. There was no disruotion of teh electin there.. but the Bush candidate lost. Some speculate that the terrorists influenced the election. Perhaps if there actually is a terrorist attack, we might want to consider decertifying the election and holding a second one.. but postponing the election because of a vague threat would either be cowardly or manipulative.
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
Brian Gideon wrote: should election day be postponed? Nope. I can't imagine the circumstances that would change my mind. "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
If there was a terrorist attack that actually took out polling stations there should be a contingency to deal with that. Otherwise no it is too likely that it would be used as one more string to be pulled by the incumbent to win the election. Anyways I don't think Al Qa'eda will try to change the election - According to their own rants they want Bush to be leader because he stirs up hatred in the Muslim countries, which is what they want. If they make an attack, it may be that Kerry will win as happened in Spain. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
If the election is postponed doesn't this means that the terrorists have a victory. It's the voting public's responsibility to elect officials, just like it's the soldiers in Iraq's responsibilities to perform their duties. Thus some voters may have to pay the ultimate price for this. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
So what do you think? If there is a terrorist attack that is strategically timed to influence the U.S. election process should election day be postponed?
Depends who makes the call and how many times and for how long they can delay the election. And because of that I don't think elections in any country should be delayable because decision makers can be corrupted. Mugabe in Zimbabwe delays elections all the time to hit favourable periods and miss unfavourable ones. Also in particular reference to the States; going on the intelligence agencies that would be advising this delay-decision I wouldn't have much faith. And man oh man did I read the title of this post wrong. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Ian Darling wrote: "and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python." Crikey! ain't life grand?