(no subject)

[ambitious_wench]

I recently said that I thought that possibly there would be an attack on the US just in time to influence the elections by giving justification to the Bush regime to cancel them, and initiate martial law.  However, an article I just read has made me change my stance:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a new federal voting commission suggested to congressional leaders Monday that there should be a process for canceling or rescheduling an election interrupted by terrorism, but national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said no such plan is being considered by the administration

I admit that I am very distrustful of King George V (of America) and his neo-conservitive agenda for my country.  I have come to the point that I fear for my freedom and safety under his "administration".  So it should be no surprise that immediately my thoughts went directly to "How would not delaying elections in the case of a "genuine" attack benifit Georgey-porgey?"  Think of the chaos another attack would generate;  and ask yourselves:  Would I be willing to go to a polling place to vote after a major attack?

Bring it on, George.  I'll make every effort to vote against your scurvey hide, even if it means going through hostile fire to get to the polls.

Comments

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

If Mt. Rainer blew up and took down Seattle, it might be hard to have elections in Seattle but we wouldn't go around cancelling *national* elections, would we?

Or if a Richter 9.0 on the New Madrid f**cked things up across a large swath of the Midwest from New Orleans to Chicago?

Given that individual states run their own elections, and that individual states choose their own electors, I'm unsure what the need for a single, national, federal mechanism to pull the plug on elections nationwide as whole is?

[turnberryknkn.livejournal.com]

But better we have this debate *now* rather than suddenly waking up Nov. 2nd to an Executive Order delaying the elections until "the immediate danger has passed"...

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Good question, Jeff. Beside the obvious political reasons, I can't think of why elections whould be stayed indefinitely.

But what about presidential elections? How fair would it be if a swing state had a natural disaster and could not participate?

[remus-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Note that they don't have to do anything new to effectively cancel elections. All they have to do is go to national terror alert red. The Republican governor of New Jersey is already on record as saying that people would not be allowed outside of their houses during a red alert.

[malada.livejournal.com]

I'll make every effort to vote against your scurvey hide, even if it means going through hostile fire to get to the polls.

Sing it sister!

-m

[trucking-witch.livejournal.com]

Since the Madrid Bombing of that Beautiful station I have thought the Spainish irresponsible in not delaying the election. Could any of us have been objective Sept 14th?

The reason for postponing a major election after a terrorist attack is not the danger to the voting population but the jerk knee emotional reaction seen in Spain.