(no subject)

[pauraque_bk]

I've just been told that the Department of Homeland Security is petitioning Congress for the right to postpone the coming election in the event of a terrorist attack.

Can someone please give me some solid information on this?

EDIT: A CNN article is here. Thanks, atdelphi.

EDIT2: There is also a BBC News article here. Thanks, muridae_x.

Comments

[chelsea-energy.livejournal.com]

Holy crap. I might have to seriously consider moving to Europe if that's true.

[atdelphi.livejournal.com]

This is the article I've seen cited: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

[pauraque]

Thank you.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell, it's just an emergency measure if the day chosen for the attacks happens to be election day. (It was in New York City on 9/11, and they had a provision to have the elections later rather than not having them at all when the city was in such chaos.) I'm of two minds, the first of which is going, "AAAAAAARGH." The other of which is going, "Um, if terrorists blow up the Capitol on election day morning, am I really going to be in any frame of mind to get to my polling place after work that night?"

[pauraque]

Yes, that was basically my reaction. I can see why it would be reasonable, but I can see how it could be abused.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, me too. I'm not terribly paranoid about it. (For paranoia, I have the Democratic National Convention here in town to deal with first, and I'm unduly paranoid about that. Yet I still find time to be paranoid about the precedent set by allowing people to search bags in the T stations, as well, even though I know that if I stood up and fought against it and it was overturned only to have a train blown up later, I'd also fret over that.) I'd really prefer to live in a September 10th world. Life was better then.

[idlerat.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but (a) that was just a mayoral primary, not the general presidential election and (b) it took them hours to get around to closing it down anyway. I wasn't aware that any special measure was in place, certainly not an act of Congress and a new government agency with special powers. The fact that it was a municipal election and the whole city was paralyzed made it necessary, and the fact that it was a relatively low budget primary made it easy to do. The date that a new mayor would take office, for instance, was not affected.

They can't predict or protect against everything (although I think the Capitol being blown up is hyperbole--there's a reason it hasn't happened yet), but I agree with Feinstein--if they could hold elections during the Civil War without special acts of Congress, they can do it now. If the worst should happen, then local arrangements will have to be made. It seems to me that giving the Bush admin special powers to postpone the election that could defeat them is *already* allowing terrorism to disrupt the democratic process.

[pauraque]

It seems to me that giving the Bush admin special powers to postpone the election that could defeat them is *already* allowing terrorism to disrupt the democratic process.

I have to agree. The BBC article mentions a relevant quotation from President Lincoln:

"The election is a necessity," Lincoln said. "We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."

[tagore.livejournal.com]

Why am I not surprised? Just when you thought they couldn't go further beyond the pale...

[ellensmithee.livejournal.com]

That's just the creepiest thing ever. I'm wondering more and more what kind of government the US is going to have in a year and whether I'll be able to go home for my mother's 60th birthday celebrations at the end of 2005.

I hope I'm just paranoid.

[sophia-helix.livejournal.com]

Our take was kind of "Wait, they want to maybe postpone the elections, because everyone knows they're the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November? But... if you pick another new date, won't there kind of be the same fixed-time, fixed-place problem? What're they going to do, just have random, floating elections over like, six months' time?"

And then we pictured election volunteers randomly popping in at odd hours, leaving little "Sorry We Missed You" notes hanging from your doorknob, and our heads hurt.

.m

[pauraque]

Well, there's a couple of things. There's postponing the election because someone thinks there will be an attack (not a defensible position, if you ask me), and then there's postponing it because there was an attack, say a few days before the election, as in Madrid. I can see legitimate concerns that would support the latter, and I'm not even certain it would help the President if the election were postponed in that case.

[muridae-x.livejournal.com]

And if you'd like an outside perspective on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3885663.stm

Now, I'm planning on being in the US for a vacation in October, and it has crossed my mind once or twice that it's only a month before the election.

But still. The implications of what a move like this could mean in the long term give me the shivers.

[pauraque]

Thanks, I added that article too.

[maidenjedi]

You know, I don't believe that the Bush administration is talking about this in order to try and increase Bush's chances of winning (though that seems to be a rather popular belief in certain circles), but I'm thoroughly against postponing the election unless and until circumstances arise that would make it necessary. A terror attack could legitimately thwart the electoral process. Vote count will be called into question if a major city is hit, and what if (God forbid) one of the *candidates* was hit? All in all, I'd like to see us have a contingency plan of some kind - some set of rules to go by in case of an attack. Will we extend polling hours, will we have a make-up day for those who didn't vote, will the city attacked have a chance to make up - these questions seem so ridiculous, and their answers even more so, but I want to be assured that someone in Washington is thinking about this. Not because of what the election's outcome might be, but because I do not want to believe that terrorists would be able to stop or thwart the most important thing about being an American.

However, if the administration bollocks this up and tries to force a postponement or cancellation without provocation, I'll be right with everyone banging down the White House door to demand my rights be given me.

[pauraque]

I don't believe that the Bush administration is talking about this in order to try and increase Bush's chances of winning (though that seems to be a rather popular belief in certain circles)

I understand where the fear comes from -- trust in the administration is just that low. There is a definite (and, in my observation, growing) sense of the administration as an entity that acts unilaterally in alarming and dangerous ways, and could essentially do anything at any time.

However, if you think about it, there isn't really any guarantee that postponing the election for a short amount of time would even help Bush. My take on it is that if people did go to the polls in immediate mortal fear of terrorism, they would be _more_ likely to vote Bush than if they'd had a week to cool off. At the very least, it's fair to say that there are a variety of possible voter reactions to a terrorist attack near election day.