This is getting crazy!!! Can this really happen??

Bush-wacked again!!??


WWLD?
What Would Lincoln Do?

Lincoln

[ July 12, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: gadbearr ]

It appears that this is another problem area regarding Federal elections that there is no clear procedure for postponing and rescheduling an election, should such an event be necessary. But what I'm troubled more about is that if such a terrorist act occurred, I would hate it if it influenced the election (even if it hurts Bush whom I want to lose big time). This would give the terrorists a huge victory, just as it might have in Spain, and give the terrorists more impetus to try to influence elections.

In one of the threads regarding the 2000 election, I stated that Constitution should be amended and/or federal laws enacted so that another disaster of an election does not recur. Besides getting rid of the ridiculous Electoral College, procedures should be clear for determining the (rightful) winner in close elections. As it stands now, the next election can be decided by a Supreme Court decision and something similar to the Baker/Olson and Christopher/Boies freak shows that we had the pleasure of witnessing. In addition, there should also be clearly outlined procedures for a postponement (not cancellation) of an election due to an emergency.

[ July 12, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

"Can they cancel or postpone a Presidential Election?"

Only if you Democrats get too uppity.

This is a nice fear thing. Here they are coming up with ideas to postpone the election if something were to happen, we're seeing Tom Ridge warn that someone may attack, although there's no credible evidence as to where or when, etc.

If you think about it, the Spanish elections were tilted in a manner the 'terrorists' wanted it to. If they did the same thing in the U.S., no matter who gets elected, nothing is radically going to change. We're not going to immediately withdrawl from Iraq like Spain did, etc. Unless they think that Nader would get elected.... eek!

You mean act like Republicans?

Don't hold your breath. A candidate could win the popular vote by 3 million, and you still wouldn't see an amendment to abolish the Electoral College make its way out of Congress. Smaller states have too much to lose. The largest 15 states contain 66% of the US population, yet receive only 59% of the votes in the Electoral College. That means the largest states are shorted by 37 votes, which are spread out amongst the 35 smallest states. That's a lot of added clout considering those 37 votes are about 14% of the 270 needed to win the election. Can you imagine "spotting" the small states 14% of the popular vote? Sounds absurd, right?

IMO, the only potential solution with a chance of passing would be an amendment to force what Maine and Nebraska have already done - mandate one winner per district and 2 at-large. This would have zero effect in 3-vote states, however. Keeping the Electoral College, mixed with proportional allocation may have a chance and would be a better solution. Neither, of course, accomplishes direct popular voting.

I see one of the online betting sites is offering prices on

1/ Osama bin Laden neutralized by Nov 2nd and GW Bush to win the election

2/ The election result not to be certified by Dec 13

3/ Homeland Security Alert to be Red on Nov 02 and GW Bush to win election

It looks like it didn't take long for Shrub's inept team to completely reverse course on this issue (if you look REAL close you can probably even see Tom Ridge and DeForest Soaries stomping their feet in anger like a couple of spoiled kids who were just told that they're not getting any more candy) ....National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice now says no such plan is being considered by the administration.

Condi Rice's exact quote was, "We've had elections in this country when we were at war, even when we were in civil war. And we should have the elections on time. That's the view of the president, that's the view of the administration"....well, if that was the view of the administration all along (as incompetent as they may be) then why did they devote such considerable time and resources towards exploring a postponement in the first place?....hmmm, I can't imagine what factors might have influenced them to do that, can you?....and now that Jeb can't keep those 47,000 "felons" out of the voting booths in the Sunshine State AGAIN what might these corrupt "leaders" think of next in order to avoid being thrown out of office in another 112 days?!

[ July 12, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

First off, this is the kind of preparation a responsible administration makes. It makes complete sense to have an alternate plan in case of a catastrophic (say, nuclear) attack on November 1.

That said, Bush is just not going to postpone the election because it's a really bad move politically. He would rather take advantage of the "don't switch horses in midstream" effect than allow a debate to take place about how he let a terrorist attack happen at a time when everyone knew shit was going down.

Thatd be one to bet on, lol. However I would think if we had good intelligence, the level should be lowered to green for the 1st time that day. No terrorist in his right mind would allow Bush to not be voted out! It'll be like a national holiday for the extremists!

I guess the question is what do you all think the terrorists feel would gain them the upper hand in our election? Bush winning or Kerry winning? Which would be better for them? Or is it all a matter of keeping everyone scared to do anything.

The meaning of terrorism is as follows:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Which way do you think the terrorists are coercing our government? Under what administration would they see the most gain? Or do they not even care about that? Just by keeping everyone at an uneasy level of thought have they accomplished their goal outside of actually killing us?

The White House never proposed this plan in the first place. A few Justice Dept. officials--idiots--simply brought up this possible scenario, but Bush and many others quickly discarded it. This is much ado about nothing.

"This is much ado about nothing.(MIB)


Kinda like the Republican proposed 'FMA'!

Ohhh... the hypocrisy!


.

I don't have a big problem with someone asking if there's a contingency plan in place for Election Day, just in case. Let's not forget that 9/11 was an Election Day in New York (the state primary, I think). I do have a huge problem with the administration creating a mood of fear throughout the country. I still expect that the terror level will be conveniently raised two or three weeks before the election.

It should be noted that the Spanish people turned out in record numbers to protest Spain's involvement in the Iraq war. A vast majority in Spain strongly opposed that war, and the winning candidate agreed with them. It wasn't the railroad station bombing that swung the election. The war in Iraq had swung it long before.