Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Administration moving the election day?

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by sled_dog, Jul 15, 2004.

  1. sled_dog

    sled_dog 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Posts:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I hadn't heard about this till just yesterday, and don't remember seeing a thread here about it. Can someone fill me in? What i have heard is that Bush wants the power ot move the day of the election in case of a terrorist threat? Sounds to me like the first step on the road to TOO much power.
     
  2. justinf

    justinf 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Posts:
    684
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscola, Illinois
    Last I heard they were looking into moving the election day if a terrorist attack actually happens, not just a threat. I think it's good they are looking into this, What happens if the terrorist stage an attack, many people wouldn't get out and vote and many votes that had been cast could be lost. then, once again, there would be many crying that it wasn't a fair election.
     
  3. bigyellowjimmy

    bigyellowjimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    Its my opinion that there should be NO moving the Nov 4 election no matter what natural or unatural disaster should occur. Allowing the elections to be moved, postponed or delayed would give the terrorists (both here and abroad) open season to severely alter the elections. Also do you really think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if it were delayed? I say keep them Nov 4 come hell or high water. We didnt even alter the elections during the Civil War.

    /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif
     
  4. justinf

    justinf 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Posts:
    684
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tuscola, Illinois
    [ QUOTE ]
    Also do you really think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if it were delayed?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The only reason, I think it should even be considered to be delayed is a catastrophic attack on election day, that caused voters to not get out and vote, or let's say that caused most of a state's votes to be lost.

    If in one of the cases I outlined above, do you think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if the elections weren't delayed/held again?

    /forums/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
     
  5. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,031
    Likes Received:
    366
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    [ QUOTE ]
    We didnt even alter the elections during the Civil War.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    really? how many delegates did Lincoln get from alabama?

    LOL!!!!

    j
     
  6. big pappa b

    big pappa b 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Posts:
    6,328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Falcon, Colorado
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif
     
  7. bigyellowjimmy

    bigyellowjimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    [ QUOTE ]
    The only reason, I think it should even be considered to be delayed is a catastrophic attack on election day, that caused voters to not get out and vote, or let's say that caused most of a state's votes to be lost.

    If in one of the cases I outlined above, do you think the losing candidate would consider the result fair if the elections weren't delayed/held again?


    [/ QUOTE ]

    I definately see your point but the problem is, who defines "a catastrophic attack" and once defined it would be an open door for terrorists, domestic or foreign, to implement such an attack and thereby be assured that their actions would certainly alter the elections nationwide.

    /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif
     
  8. sled_dog

    sled_dog 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Posts:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I think the problem is that as I've understood it Bush would have the power, and the president having power over the election that could make or break him is insane to me.
     
  9. sled_dog

    sled_dog 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Posts:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I think the problem is that as I've understood it Bush would have the power, and the president having power over the election that could make or break him is insane to me.
     
  10. bigyellowjimmy

    bigyellowjimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    [ QUOTE ]
    really? how many delegates did Lincoln get from alabama?

    LOL!!!!

    j



    [/ QUOTE ]

    Alabama sent as many as they wanted to send I guess /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif

    Im talking about election day though, if there is a terrorist attack on Nov 4 I beleive we should go ahead with the election as planned. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif

    /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif
     
  11. bigyellowjimmy

    bigyellowjimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    [ QUOTE ]
    I think the problem is that as I've understood it Bush would have the power, and the president having power over the election that could make or break him is insane to me.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    What is your source for this?
     
  12. sled_dog

    sled_dog 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Posts:
    16,870
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    its just what I've gotten from people explaining it to me, thats why I started this post I want people to help me REALLY understand this cause as I see it, it is scary.
     
  13. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    The dept of homeland security and a new agency, the Federal Election Assistance Commission, wants it clarified who has that power, and would like to get that power. As far as I can tell, this is not an order from Bush, just from Bush appointees (many people automatically assume "appointees" means the pres is pulling thier strings, but that's often not the case according to history).
    The head of the EAC (see above) has asked for clarification of this, not for any action yet.

    I've seen it being horribly reported and rumoured to be a fact, when it's an inquiry. It's been tremendously compounded by the media as a terrible thing and the precursor to dictatorship or martial law takeover, but it's being handled pretty diplomatically and should not be able to elevate anyone's power.
    Don't forget, the elections happen several months before any official is sworn into office. If they move the elections, they wouldn't be able to move them beyond inauguration dates, and the move would likely be by a week or so. Noone would gain any advantage by this, except in that there's more campaign time.
    Noone could EVER constitutionally cancel an election.

    The objective (as I percieve it) is to avoid having elections that would be massively influenced in the wake of a disaster, I.E. Madrid, and Spain voting in a new government through sheer emotional turmoil.
    If another 9/11 type event occurred just before the election, it could cause someone unfit for office to get voted in by simple knee-jerk reaction, rather than voting for someone you've actually studied. Like anyone does that anyway... /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rotfl.gif I think what they're looking for is what they can do if a disaster occurs and the election would suffer severely as a result of the disaster.
    This is just what I'm gathering, not what they actually said, though...

    I've used the Patriot act as a comparitive example. Some senators said they voted for it without completely reading or understanding it. That kind of voting should NEVER happen, it defeats the purpose of voting.


    Here's the story as reported by CNN:
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/

    I personally think it's good and bad. I think it's important that we keep elections sacred. But that may be a paradox when they may be disrupted or influenced by current events of the world.

    Martial law would be too much power...
     
  14. jekbrown

    jekbrown I am CK5 Premium Member GMOTM Winner Author

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Posts:
    45,031
    Likes Received:
    366
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA, USA
    [ QUOTE ]
    Im talking about election day though, if there is a terrorist attack on Nov 4 I beleive we should go ahead with the election as planned. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif

    [/ QUOTE ]

    what if the attack disrupted the voting system though? I mean, say, for example, that 90% of people that wanted to vote in, oh, I dunno, Miami... couldn't vote for some terrorist-related reason. too bad so sad for them? what if it was an entire state? what if Washington DC gets nuked on Nov 3rd and neither side has a candidate who is alive? Im not saying any of these are likely... just that saying "dont change it under ANY circumstances" doesnt address all the possible circumstances...

    j
     
  15. Twiz

    Twiz 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Posts:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Clearfield Ut.
    [ QUOTE ]
    The objective (as I percieve it) is to avoid having elections that would be massively influenced in the wake of a disaster, I.E. Madrid, and Spain voting in a new government through sheer emotional turmoil.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    I'd say you can pretty much count on terrorist activites happening on our soil, just before the election.
    It worked in Spain, there is absolutly no reasson why they would not try it again, here.
    It is after-all TERRORISM, which intends to terrorize people into acting or behaveing in a manner that they would not do otherwise. Which is why I may question moveing the election date, in-as-much-as it is acting out in a manner that we, the people, would not do otherwise.
    The only act that terrorism should bring, is finding them and killing them.

    I pray Bush is on the ball with this, as I'm sure he is.
    Allthough, I'm afraid, I doubt there is much he, or anyone else for that matter, could do to prevent it.
    It is incredibly difficult to track and find a enemy who hasn't acted-out yet.

    Thank god Al-Quida is dismantled, that doesn't put an end to it, but it sure slows 'em down.

    Praying and Voteing for Bush in '04 !
     
  16. bigyellowjimmy

    bigyellowjimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    [ QUOTE ]
    what if the attack disrupted the voting system though? I mean, say, for example, that 90% of people that wanted to vote in, oh, I dunno, Miami... couldn't vote for some terrorist-related reason. too bad so sad for them? what if it was an entire state? what if Washington DC gets nuked on Nov 3rd and neither side has a candidate who is alive? Im not saying any of these are likely... just that saying "dont change it under ANY circumstances" doesnt address all the possible circumstances...


    [/ QUOTE ]

    I believe there are rules already in place to address these things, especially the death of a candidate. It would be virtually impossible for 90% of the polling places in Miami to be closed by a terrorist attack, there are many, many different polling places. My concern is this......the Dems have already started the ball rolling by attemting to declare an election not legit because the ballot was too "Confusing" and the polling places were too difficult to reach. This was in a time of peace in the most prosperous nation on earth! Now they are calling for the United Nations to come to the US to regulate the elections in 04. I firmly believe that all the political parties have zealots on the fringe of insanity that wouldnt hesitate for a moment to sway the elections if they knew they could. I also beleive that the instant the US would announce what event it would take to alter an election that there would be Jihadists planning an attack.

    BTW.....I mis spoke earlier, the election is on Nov 2 not Nov 4. My sons BD is Nov 4 and he thought his birthday fell on election day this year but a quick look at the calendar and I see that is wrong /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif

    /forums/images/graemlins/usaflag.gif
     
  17. jarheadk5

    jarheadk5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2000
    Posts:
    4,389
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PA
    [ QUOTE ]
    It would be virtually impossible for 90% of the polling places in Miami to be closed by a terrorist attack, there are many, many different polling places.

    [/ QUOTE ]


    Think "Improvised Nuclear Device".

    Something as simple as several hundred pounds of conventional explosive (which obviously isn't hard to acquire if you're a terrorist...) packaged with some nuclear waste. Take said package off the ground to get an airburst (the top of a 20-story building will suffice. Or you can substitute an airplane for the 20-story building...). Detonate the conventional explosive, and you spread radioactive debris for quite a ways. Now what's the very first thing the 1st responders (cops, firemen, paramedics) and local gov't folks will say?
    "RESIDENTS, PLEASE STAY IN YOUR HOMES WITH YOUR DOORS AND WINDOWS CLOSED!"
    Which really is the best (and honestly, only) way for your average urban American to stay safe from a threat like that.



    Or even worse, you could substitute a no-sh!t nuclear weapon from the former Soviet Union... I believe bin Laden has gone on record stating his lust for a nuke...
     
  18. 82diesel

    82diesel 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2003
    Posts:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Stockton, CA
    Problem is there is no one in charge of setting the election dates due to extreame circunstances.

    Most states have someone with authority to change the dates clearly written, but there is nothing like it for the federal govt.

    If a major terrorism (or even natural accident) attack occurs on the east coast in the middle of the day, do you not think the entire country would be glued to their tv sets and in fear of what may happen next? How many people were thinking about anything substantial but terrorism on 9/11 ?
     
  19. bigyellowjimmy

    bigyellowjimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2004
    Posts:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    Ken,

    A wide spread nuclear attack is definately a possibility but not the most likely form of terrorism we would see on our soil. So far terrorists havent been able to use this type of device but I firmly believe they would if they could. I understand this problem doesnt have a cut and dried, black and white or right or wrong answer but I feel it would be very foolish to simply publicly state that if there is some sort of disaster on Nov 2, 2004 the USA will postpone the elections, I also feel it would be very foolish to state that if there is a disaster of said type or a distaster that effects said amount of people on Nov 2 that the USA will postpone elections. Its giving the enemy a game plan that is guaranteed to work if implemented successfully. On the other hand, if the US publicly states that we will hold our elections on Nov 2 unconditionally and under no circumstances will we postpone them due to a terrorist attack...I believe that sends the right message to the terrorists.
     
  20. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    Not to be an alarmist, but... I believe a nuclear event is a real possibility within the U.S., and I believe it's possible today, tomorrow, or next year. Islam's core fundamentals teach patience until the opportune time to destroy your enemy the best way you can.

    "Dirty bombs" are a serious realistic threat, too, but to tell you the truth, I'm more worried about a true Nuclear weapon than I am a dirty bomb.

    [ QUOTE ]
    ...if the US publicly states that we will hold our elections on Nov 2 unconditionally and under no circumstances will we postpone them due to a terrorist attack...I believe that sends the right message to the terrorists.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I agree with that. But, I think it's prudent to be prepared, too. I'm kinda Kerry-ing this one (flip flopping, except I'll show up to vote). I see pros and cons on each side, but I hadn't consider the message it would send by not budging on the date.
    Tenaciously clinging to and sticking with our principles is another thing I firmly believe will strengthen America.
     

Share This Page