Questions for debate:

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

A bonus question for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

I brought this up in a different thread. This does scare me, given the lengths the Republican party went to to deny the voting public their rights in the 2000 election.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?
Definitely, we need a contingency plan. What scares me is the word cancel. There is no excuse for cancelling elections.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?
Considering the nationwide nature of the presidential election, any attack or disaster that could effect whether voters are able to get to the polls anywhere should be cause for rescheduling elections for everyone. We know the media won't keep polls and projections quiet, so there's no way we could hold elections without disenfranchising those who would have to wait to vote.
Cancelling elections, on the other hand, would be just cause for armed rebellion on the part of we, the people of the United States.

A bonus question for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?
Not at all. That accusation would be beyond the pale. I do, however, based on what I've witnessed from the Bush administration, believe that they would take advantage of any opportunity given to them to strip the citizens of the US of our civil liberties.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

I'm not sure that we need a contingency plan for what happens if a terrorist attack happens before an election. In my opinion the very most we should have is an allowance of extra time for areas which might be directly effected by the terrorist act to finish voting.

If we were to create some kind of law that allows the elections to be rescheduled don't you think that in and of itself would invite attack? I mean that provides terrorists with a way to effect the United States in a very real and history making way with minimal effort.

I hope that people don't serious start considering this.

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?
I wouldn't put anything past this administration, but I generally don't subscribe to conspiracy theories so I prefer not to think about it

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

Have in place? Yes. Announce it to the world in July? No.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

Simply that every voter is allowed the opportunity to cast their ballot, no matter what.

A bonus question for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

Though I believe this administration to be unspeakably vile, I don’t believe they’d stoop quite this low. HOWEVER, I can believe that they would use the threat of attack to frighten the voting public away from the polls. Or, they could discover (if they haven’t already) where Osama is, keep it quiet, and pull him in just before the election. That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. It all goes back to my discussions in the Cry Wolf thread. You create enough fear in people’s hearts, you can manipulate that fear to your own ends.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?If there is an attack there must be a postponement of an election at the very least, the reason should be that the region hit will be way to busy searching for loved ones, establishing order as well as setting plans for making the area safe and clean up. The people of the area hit would be disenfranchised if not given a some period of time to deal will more pressing matters.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?I believe that an attack within a Month prior to the Election should postpone the election for 1 month from the date of the attack. That gives people 2 weeks to search, *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** damage and process the shock, 2 weeks to possibly look outwards again and get a sense of what the candidates have had to say in light of the attack and make a final decision as to whom they wish to vote for. Actually I would ideally like to postpone it longer though a month seems like a reasonable period of time, given the circumstances.


A bonus question for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections? Why do we all assume it would be Bush that would do the evil deed, When I read the question I immediately thought of a Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph type of personality, left or Right Wing Extremist Oh Ye of Little Faith

Are you really afraid? I'm mean so afraid that you aren't leaving your home, not going to work, not doing the things you did prior to 9-11?

I can't say that I'm afraid. I do expect another attack. Could be in my city(not sure why they would pick St. Louis) and I live a little over a mile from the airport. It doesn't stop me from going on about my life. As a matter of fact, I used to live in a very remote area in the SW.

I just don't understand all this stuff people are saying about the administration being the ones to bring on fear.

Having the government institute martial law on Election Day would scare the socks off me. I agree with Cube Jockey that the ability to cancel the election by terrorist attack would serve as an additional incentive to these fanatics.

Cancelling the election would be a mistake; postponement would not be as bad.

And if there is a plan in place, I agree that it would be better for law enforcement agencies to play it close to the vest for the reason stated in my first paragraph.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?



Nicely put.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

Certainly; it makes a fair amount of sense to have some sort of plan in place. I just don't think you want to go around telling everyone the specifics of that plan. It would make sense to announce that we will have elections no matter what.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

I believe that everyone who is able should be able to vote, even if it means delaying the election for a month or so. The plan should include a definite time frame for the election, and it should be binding so that nobody will be able to put off the elections indefinitely. Most importantly, it should have a provision allowing for those in an affected area to receive transportation to the polls if they are unable to find any.

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

We obviously have anarchists and terrorists in the country; I wouldn't put anything past them.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

Yeah. I like Cube's KISS approach... just make sure people have the oppertunity to vote... in the remote chance a hurricane wipes stuff out or an act of terror occurs... have FEMA or someone transport people who want to still vote to an auxillary voting center, where they register there, then vote.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

Ha, I guess I sort of answered that in the last paragraph. Just provide what I mentioned...

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

Ok... I have to say something to all the people who have mentioned the other conspiracy stuff about the last election...

Blame Chad... not George...

The Republicans did not intentionally try to confuse voters with the ballot style and Bush campaign supportters and personell did not intimidate black voters (another popular conspiracy theory)...

That being said... sure... I think it's possible... no tell who's gonna come out of the woodwork this November... (lol...dollars to donuts it's a Kerry supporter who's afraid he'll lose to Bush)

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

As I understand it, the color level of the terrorist threat has covered the wide spectrum from Yellow to Orange continuously since 9/11/2001. That would lead me to believe that the Bush administration should be expecting, and therefore should be adequately prepared to meet the ongoing terrorist threat, even on an election day.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

Recall the National Guard from Iraq and Afghanistan, so that they can patrol the most threatened cities, harbors, airports, tunnels and streets on November 2, 2004 to assure us all that we can safely cast our votes on election day.

A bonus question for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

Turning the shade of my glasses back from angry red, at the thought of canceled or postponed elections, to their normal rose color; I suspect that the conspiracy theory that the Bush administration is most concerned with at the moment is an alleged plot by Democrats to locate, register, and encourage to vote; all the adult U. S. citizens of the ABB voting bloc.

No because i think we are just freaking out a little too much over what might happened. I agree it is good to be prepared in the event of another terrorist attack on our soil but throwing in the option of temporarly cancelling the election is a little out of it in terms of being prepared

Thank you for the compliment, but that quote is daffy girls, not mine. I was quoting her post.

Just don't want to be mistaken as trying to take credit for something you admire, that wasn't mine.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?
I think a contingency plan is an excellent idea.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?
The election should be delayed by a certain time frame and the plan should detail how long the election can be postponed in relation to the hypothetical attack. The time frame should be long enough for the affected area to be able to resume a somewhat form of normalcy. Search and rescue would need to be over (or we need to be at least certain that no more lives could be saved). I feel fairly confident that the search and rescue team would be more concerned with saving lives then voting for a President. Their vote should not be disregarded. I think this can all be accomplished and still have a President in office by inauguration day.

Curm- I understand why you would be upset with canceled election (and I agree) but postponed only makes sense. The region affected by a hypothetical terrorist attack would be paralyzed. No matter how prepared we are we need to be prepared for that. Certainly you would not want to deny their right to vote? Right?

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?
What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

I think that the plans that should be in place are those that attempt to normalise ANY sitation a.s.a.p. after a terror attack - I don't think there should be special arrangements for elections, at least not something that would need to be much different from a hurricane or earthquake or other natural disaster. The principle should be about making sure that the election takes place and everyone who is entitled to vote gets the opportunity to do so, which would involve keeping polls open longer, or having a short postponement (say, a few days or weeks).

A bonus question for the conspiracy theorist in all of us:
Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

I somewhat doubt it, though my scepticism at the lengths the Bush administration is prepared to go to to get its own way inceases almost hourly.

That the issue has been raised makes me wonder exactly what the administration fears, though. Are they genuinely concerned to make sure the democratic process happens as smoothly as possible, or are they just afraid that if they don't postpone or cancel an election that is disrupted by terrorism, they will lose it? Certainly the very existence of the word "cancel" in the public speculation o this matter makes me think that the second option is a real possibility.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?
Certainly. The parameters of such a postponement plan (not cancellation, I see absolutely no situation where a cancellation of elections would be needed. Even in the middle of WW2, we had elections). I think the 1 month idea seems best, but that would be entirely too long if the attack were limited and small scale, and didn't actually affect voting places.

Let's say an actual voting place (or places ) was bombed. The votes cast there would be, in all likelihood, lost. This would make the entire election in that state questionable.

I think we should limit the postponement to only those states which are affected, not nationwide. Although this may be questionable (having different election days in different states), I think it is the fairest to both candidates.

So there is little doubt a plan needs to be in place.

In addition, I think the details of the plan need to be made public. We, as Americans, need to be clear that election will be held, regardless of what happens. Terrorists must also know that they will not stop democracy. I doubt revealing the details of the plan will encourage terrorists. Having the plan publicly available will reduce the cries of unfairness. I think the plan needs to be passed soon.

For those who endorse Kerry that do not endorse a postponement of an election, I wouldn't assume that a postponement would automatically favor Bush. I hear some discussion about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan from Kerry though little to no discussion about the war on terror as a whole. A postponement may in fact act in Kerry's best interests. As I have stated before Kerry has been pretty absent on the the War on Terror issue, to me, a supporting example is



I will continue to sit the fence and tap my foot impatiently. Gee I hope he gets around to being briefed and put some thought into it before the election.

I do not believe a postponement would necessarily serve one side or another though it would definitely serve the people. A calm and well informed voter has to be better than an emotional ill-informed voter.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?
Absolutely. Its imperative that equal access be ensured for all citizens and if something like 9/11 happens the election should be accounted for.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?
The only key requirement in my mind is that election results in other areas be witheld until the affected polling areas can vote. The news outlets these days are too aggressive in trying to report results and they could impact the voting in that area by releasing results too early.

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?
Given the lack of concensus on how an attack would effect the outcome, I'd say its unlikely.

Doc

Absolutely not (read any of my posts in the Cry Wolf thread), but I am only one person.

My point, exactly.

Well, first of all, I attempted to include this possibility on Friday while discussing the Ridge announcement, and was told that it was of target. It appears to be very on target, and I don't like what else I foresee from this Constitutional destroying administration.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

Mail in votes. In Oregon, we have 3 weeks to vote and mail in our ballots. Mail everyone a ballot on the first of October, and require all ballots to be postmarked by Nov. 2.

Hey, let's surprise the "Evil no good little people that will kill us all" and hold it 2 days early.......


What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

NO. It gives whomever would target us an Instant reward for their actions. (We mailed you a ballot. Why did you wait until the last minute to vote? Vote early or a TERRORIST might KILL you first.) Sorry Just sick and tired of the administration trying to scare the living crap out of me and astonished to how many people are buying into it. You are going to die in a car accident, from cancer, by being buried by a snow-plow, falling through thin ice............YOU will NOT be killed by a terrorist, no matter how many times your President tells you otherwise.

Do you believe a terrorist attack could be carried out by our own in order to influence the elections?

Does verbal terrorism count? Does soliciting fear in the citizens of the United States count? Does saying "I can protect you and he can't count"?

Here's a continency plan.......LET'S VOTE RIGHT NOW!!!!! I can't wait any longer.

1.)We should have a plan in place. I believe the word "cancel" has a lot of people freaked out, and that using "delayed" or something like that would have been more sagacious. It would at least alleviate any fears that people entertain about our current leader trying to create some junto to seize power indefinitely.

2.)First, we have to deal with a legal issue here to remedy this problem. We've written in the specifics as to when the election should occur:

United States Election Assistance Commission

After that is taken care of, I believe we need to establish a maximum limit to delaying the election. I believe that it should be no more than two months. While an attack like 9-11 would be just as devastating, it would not create a state of siege against every city and every state. If we were attacked, obviously, it would only affect a few large urban areas. The vote in Arkansas, Oklahoma, or Kansas could go on, since cornfields aren't inviting targets and Al-Qaeda wants nothing to do with Betty the holstein. In large areas that were attacked, I believe you could delay the vote and then have voters drive(and government could provide large buses) to have voters cast their ballot in a neighboring county with federal oversight. Not only that, but have the new voting day an emergency, one-time only federal holiday to encourage higher turnout.

3.)This is a flawed premise if there ever was one. The line of reasoning goes like this: Al-Qaeda created havoc in Spain and as a result, Aznar was voted out and teh socialists were voted in. The reasoning then continues that if we were to have such an attack, a weaker anti-terror president would take office and the heat would be off of Al-Qaeda. O.KA., here are the problems with that.

-In a recent tug-of-war over the national democratic party platform, John Kerry had anti-war discussions and possible platform ideas squashed. you can read another account of this event here.

-Kerry doesn't disagree with if the war should be fought, he only disagrees about how it is carried out. He only differs from Bush in that he wants more international cooperation. He would have the U.N. oversee the Iraqi reconstruction effort, and NATO taking up more of the burden. He is by no means, advocating pulling out of Iraq completely and just letting the Iraqis settle the issue themselves.

-The Spanish people felt Aznar was not following their desires in regards to the war before the bombing. 90% of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war in the first place, and Aznar proved to be out of touch. Aznar was voted out because voters perceived him as being less than honest about Spain's train bombing fiasco.Aznar tried to deceive the public as to who was responsible for the attack and blamed it on Basque separatists. Why blame the Basques instead? To deflect any problems associated with their Iraq intervention which led to the migration of terrorism to Madrid. He was perceived as being dishonest and his party was taken to the woodshed because of it.

I think the word "cancel" is being used too often.

What was said was not "cancel" as in come back in 4 years. It was in the context of "cancel and reschedule"... i.e. postpone.

There is going to be a debate about whether or not we should just null all of the votes cast on the original election day and start over (i.e. cancel and postpone) or simply reschedule the "disrupted" states (reschedule select areas).


I have heard nothing to indicate that there is any possible scenario in which the election would be "cancelled".

It would be most unfortunate if such a plan to cancel election day were put in place. Furthermore, not only do I believe that the current administration is capable of causing an attack to hold off the election, but refused to prvent 9/11 as to have a nice segway into the mid-east.

Jim C. Perry

Thinking back on the morning of 9/11, most of the country went off to work even after learning that a second jet crashed into the WTC. Don't see why the American public would react any differently on voting day. We aren't the chicken-stuffs some think we are.

Granted, a part of NYC was a mess, as was the Pentagon. So what? we are a nation of nearly three hundred million people spread over lots of territory. Even if an attack of that magnitude were to happen again, it'd not effect the outcome of the election -- especially with all the opportunities to cast early votes.

Assuming that precinct records are intact, those who did not get an opportunity to vote could do so. If precinct records are lost, then sorry. There's no way to verify that someone had not voted already.

So, do a contingency plan? Sure, same as for natural disaster. That's about it. Cancel/reschedule? Why? To let the terrorists know that they shook up the American public? Or is it the government that would get shook up.

I see no reason to cancel/reschedule voting day. Terrorists be damned, we vote in this country. It's an expression of who we are.

actually, what was said was cancel or reschedule. The cancelling you speak of is inherent in rescheduling and mentioning it would be a redundancy. It is pretty evident that cancelled means cancelled here.

First I will add a disclaimer, this topic is emotional for me and I am extremely sensitive to this debate. While I respect the people who think that an election could be held if there were a terrorist attack my reasoning is completely surrounded by the fact that I WAS in Manhattan on September 11th and therefore have some concerns about the perception and lack of understanding about how an area that was subject to a terrorist attack would play out. Perhaps the lack of understanding I am hearing is because you really have no idea what a terrorist attack can do to a city. We were in lock down. If you wanted to get home people had to walk across bridges. If it were an election day, I would not have had an opportunity to vote because my residency is in NJ and I didn't go home, because it was more important that I be with the closest friend I have in the world, whose fiance was in Windows of the World. Voting would not, nor will it ever be, a priority against someone I love. That is a fact for me and I bet my last dollar that would be a fact for anyone else. Aside from the almost impossibility it would have been to get home we had thousands of rescue workers who pulled together to try and SAVE lives. These men and women worked around the clock, not for 1 day but for many days. A lot of them would sleep on streets so they would get the necessary sleep that was required. I am also fairly certain that their primary concern would not be voting. Perhaps those that think a postponement to the election is not necessary don't think that their votes are worth anything, I beg to differ. Finally the psychological impact of a terrorist attack is another consideration. On September 12th when I finally did get home, after no sleep and it taking nearly 4 hours for me to get there, I finally broke emotionally . I would not have been in any frame of mind to cast a vote. I finally got to talk to my family and try to return the numerous phone calls from people all over the world who left messages because they thought I was dead.

Lets be reasonable here, if a terrorist attack were to happen again, business as usual would not be an option for the many people who may have been affected. Perhaps you don't think that they should have a say in who is President, well I won't even try to argue with that thought, but I do.

Also, it seems to be a majority of Democratic leaning people who think that having a contingency plan is not a good idea. Might I remind you that if NYC were to be attacked again the people whose votes you don't think count are the ones that make NYS and NJ be Democratic leaning. My guess is both states would go to Bush if such a thing were to happen.

Do you think we should have a plan in place in case a terrorist attack happens prior to or on the day of elections?

Yes.

What do you believe should be requirements of a contingency plan?

I agree that elections should be delayed for a rather significant time after an attack. Time would be needed to be certain that no one was disenfranchised. I do however think this should be a decision made by Congress or the Federal Elections Commission (I would opt for Congress) -- this is beyond the mission scope of the Election Assistance Commission.

As to the conspiracy question?

This President has lied before to get what he wanted (a unilateral invasion of Iraq).

Why does everyone think that they must be delayed? Why not start them early? The counting can begin on November 2nd, but, why can't I drop my ballot in the box today? Why not October 2nd? The simple solution is to begin gathering ballots early, and if someone runs into a terrorist attack on the eve of an election, well, they had plenty of time to cast their vote. If you think that your vote counts, I am sure that you will get your ballot in prior to the "doomsday event"...

Start collecting ballots early.

DreamPipEr makes a very good point. NYC, Miami, LA, Chicago, large urban areas vote Democratic. Thus, if an attack were to happen in one of those areas, hundreds of thousands of votes would not be cast.

I still don't see any reason why that should cause the election to be "cancelled" or even "rescheduled". Instead of closing the voting booths at the end of the day, the voting booths could be kept open later, possibly even a few days later, in effected areas -- which would be a relatively small area.

To avoid people being discouraged from voting in that state, perhaps a rule could be made that no predictions or numbers for that state could be broadcast in the event of a terrorist attack within that state.

There is absolutely no reason why the election should ever be "rescheduled". Nothing in our history has ever caused us to have to reschedule an election. We have been through depression, recession, war -- never a rescheduled election. No exception should be made for terrorism.

If an exception is made, it simply proves that the model tested in Spain, in fact works everywhere and you have given terrorists a very powerful weapon against international politics.

I think delayed is the way to go, based on my own personal experiences on a terrorist attack in an area that holds 20+ million people (NY NJ CN) where a good portion of those residence commute to work. Also there are quite few people who commute from PA.

I think a contingency is the best way, Government Mule wants them early I want it later but to not have one is a disservice to the people that could be affected.

If you think it is best to just hold off the disenfranchised, that's fine. I, though, see a problem similar to the complaints about California knowing the East Coast election results prior to their polling booths closure. I think that issue needs to be addressed as well but for now we are only addressing the hypothetical terrorist attack and making sure we have some sort of plan in place. The details of which should take all scenarios involved. It is only a PLAN not a given. It is called being prepared if something should happen. If people want to ignore that something could happen, well I can't do anything about that.


So since we have not had an issue we shouldn't be prepared? When did any of your scenarios result in one segment of the country becoming disenfranchised? Why don't you tell me why the victims of a terrorist attack should not be allowed a vote?

Where in my post did I say they should not be allowed to vote? I stated that the election should continue and they should be given more time.

The mere existence of a loophole allowing an election to be delayed, rescheduled, whatever you want to call it is not something I believe we should ever entertain no matter what kind of national crisis we are in. Frankly I don't trust politicians on either side not to use it to their advantage, and when they did it would be a defeat of Democracy.

Perhaps I am misreading this quote but I read "absolutely no reason why an election should ever be "rescheduled" and then "No exception should be made for terrorism." I interpret that to mean the people who can not vote on election day are not allowed to vote. Because if it can't be rescheduled then they can't vote regardless if they are trapped in an area that is not their jurisdiction or searching for survivors, etc. Never mind the psychological impact a terrorist attack can have. Never mind the fact that their priorities are going to be about their loved ones, neighbors and colleagues. If they don't get to the polls too bad because since an election has never been postponed we shouldn't allow it now.

More time is rescheduling. It's one or the other. I see issues with extending an election over a period of time and I addressed that above.



What loophole? I think it would be pretty clear, IF THERE IS A TERRORIST ATTACK xyz days prior to an election or on election day the election will be postponed by xyz days after the actual event. I don't see how this could be used by either party for their political gain. Please explain.

I also understand your position is that you don't want a plan. Am I misunderstanding you?

In that same post I said:

No where did I say these people shouldn't vote. Keeping the polls open later is also not the same thing as rescheduling the election. The election would proceed as normal in areas that were not directly effected and it would be extended in areas that were. That is what I suggested as the extent of a plan.


Fairly easily, all that has to happen is for the talking heads, on either side, to get on TV and start blaming one side or the other. Or the media could do the same thing. There is even the potential of politicians themselves (not necessarily the candidates) doing or saying things like this. Anything of this nature is going to influence the election. The people doing the blaming will likely be out only for political gain for their side, they will not be doing it for anything as noble as healing the country.


I am not saying there should not be a plan, I am saying I disagree with cancelling, rescheduling or otherwise moving the election date. The only plan I would support is to extend voting times in areas which were directly effected. If there is an attack in NY, the voting booths will be open until a specified date when everyone can reasonably be assumed to have had a chance to vote, the vothing booths in CA however still close that day.

Ok listen I have a big issue with extending an election. Are we to keep the polls open for the entire nation? Or only the affected area? If we were to do that then I would say it would have to be for the entire nation not just the affected area. You don't think their will be partisan rhetoric due to that? Partisan rhetoric is not, nor will it ever, go away. If there is an issue that they think they are in the right or they think they can hurt the right (and vice a versa) partisans will take every opportunity.

Even if we were to take this approach it is still postponing an election. I really don't see the difference. So why have the polls open over an extended period over not holding an election, allowing the affected area to return to some level of normalcy (at minimum till we are no longer in rescue mode) and have the election on 1 day. It seems cleaner and fairer to the whole country.

Ok, let me approach this a different way. I can respect and appreciate the emotional aspect of this debate because you do happen to live in an area directly effected by terrorism Dream PipEr. Admittedly my argument up to this point was largely unsupported by anything specific except my general distrust of politicians and my personal feelings on the subject. But let me address it from a constitutional and legal perspective instead:

No where in the constitution is the power granted to the executive branch to modify any aspect of the election process. There is no clause that gives them an exception in case of national emergency.

Additionally presidential elections are governed by Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (sorry about the horrendous 1992-ish HTML background).


This law explicitly sets the date when elections are to occur by virtue of specifying when electors must be appointed. It also states that if the state fails to appoint electors it is up to the state legislature to decide how to proceed.

So, based on the Constitution and Federal Law, the executive branch clearly has no say in the matter. I get the feeling the assumption is that the executive branch would make the decision here from a few posts and also from several articles I have read about this recently. Legally the only entity with power to modify election law is Congress and if some kind of catastrophe were to occur preventing electors from being appointed (e.g. a terrorist action) then it would be up to the state legislature to deal with that.

It is important to note that our laws, as written basically advocate the same thing I have said in previous posts. The state might not come to the same conclusion as I did, but other states not effected by the terrorist action would have to proceed with the election as proscribed under law. For example, if an attack were to occur in New York, the other 49 states would be required to finish their election as proscribed and the New York State legisltaure would have to be convened to decide what to do.

So, we do currently have a plan to deal with this unlike some of these articles claim. That plan is to let the individual state legislature decide what to do. Congress is the only entity with the authority to change the laws governing elections, the executive branch has no authority whatsoever.

That being said I am very uncomfortable with changing the process by which elections occur unless Congress were to pass a bill amending federal election law or preferably pass an amendment ratified by 3/4ths of the states detailing exactly how this situation would be dealt with and exactly under what circumstances it could be invoked.

I do not feel that a terrorist attack is something which should not be considered, but the process must be followed, or it must be changed by the proper authorities. If terrorists were to attack and we departed from our process (which has never been effected in our entire history) then they would have scored a win no matter what happened. The whole goal here is to make us change our way of life, shred our constitution a little bit -- that absolutely cannot happen under any circumstances.

Edited to add: At least I agree with Bush on something: White House Response. I can't believe I just typed those words, I wonder if I have a fever

I have no problem with following law and I don't care if it is the Federal or States , to some degree I agree that the States probably should handle this individually. Perhaps NY, NJ, CN, and PA will act quicker in making sure a plan is in place. I fear those States that have (as I my sister put it in another thread) put their heads in the sand and think they are immune to anything happening to them. I still believe it should be handled on a national basis. Laws can be changed and we should change them to accommodate this changing world we live in . With that said, as long as their is a plan, we know exactly how it will be dealt with, and the people who may be adversely affected by a hypothetical attack are not told "you have no right to vote" because we can't change existing law then I am cool.

First off, my sympathies to all who have been traumatized from the 9/11 attacks. Direct experience with this, as with direct experience with natural disasters (quakes, floods, blizzards & so on), changes people for lifetimes. Experiencing yet another similar trauma is an ongoing nightmare.

Don't think anyone is saying that victims of a terrorist attack or those affected by a terrorist attack should be disenfranchised. We are saying that another terrorist attack should not paralyze the entire nation, just as a deadly hurricane on the East Coast should not. Or a freak blizzard in the Midwest. Or a tsunami on the West Coast. Or a volcanic erruption in the Western states.

We need contingency plans for the natural disasters as well as man-made. The point is to keep the right to vote going no matter what, and in the case of terrorism, to let the terrorists know that their efforts are in vain. Another point is to never let the government use the fear of terrorism to disenfranchise everybody.

With the realization that a terrorist attack or natural disaster could happen on or close to voting day, and with the realization that early voting is available to most citizens, it seems to me that we ought to be thinking along the lines of voting as soon as possible. Get this duty done with so we can handle the challenges of living that might come up.

But in no way do I support, nor will I ever support, the cancellation of our democracy out of fear. The proposal to cancel or postpone the coming election stinks of such a scheme. It also plays right into the hopes and dreams of terrorists.

I can see the value in postponing the *counting* of votes until all who can vote, and who have not been disenfranchised due to lost records from the attack/disaster get a chance to vote.

It's a dangerous world. We should not cower from it.

I'm sure we've held elections on days when there were horrible snowstorms, massive flooding, whatever. People vote anyway. People vote in places where civil war is raging and risk death to do it. A localized terrorist attack? We need to re-learn what it takes to fight for our democracy.

But... contingency plans and alternative high-tech solutions are a great idea... and something that should have been put in place long ago and not thought about just as election season starts.