Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

[lagilman]

Officials discuss how to delay Election Day
Talks stem from recent fears of terror attack timed to election
Sunday, July 11, 2004 Posted: 8:43 PM EDT (0043 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

The department has referred questions about the matter to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.

The department wants to know about the possibility of granting emergency power to the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission, authority that Roehrkasse said was requested by DeForest B. Soaries Jr., the commission's chairman.

Soaries, who was appointed by President Bush, is a former New Jersey secretary of state and senior pastor of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens in Somerset, New Jersey.

He wrote in April to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice asking them to seek such legislation from Congress, Roehrkasse said.

Roehrkasse said the recent discussions were sparked by intelligence indicating al Qaeda wants to "disrupt our democratic process."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of such an attack in a news conference last week, saying the warning was based on intercepted "chatter" among al Qaeda operatives. (Full story)

Roehrkasse noted, however, that there was no specific information suggesting such an attack would be aimed at the political conventions or the November 2 Election Day.

The four-day Democratic convention kicks off July 26 in Boston, Massachusetts, and the Republican National Convention begins August 30 in New York City.

Ridge also said the nation's color-coded terrorist threat level would remain at yellow, or elevated.

Democratic Rep. Jane Harman of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, took issue with Ridge's comments Sunday.

"Six days ago, the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leadership of the House and Senate were briefed on these so-called new threats," Harman said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"They are more chatter about old threats, which were the subject of a press conference by Attorney General [John] Ashcroft and [FBI] Director [Robert] Mueller six weeks ago.

"[Ridge] sounded more like an interior decorator talking about what more we can do under the shade of yellow," she said.

What has Homeland Security officials worried is that terrorists could attempt to disrupt the election in same way that March 11 train bombings in Madrid created unrest three days before the Spanish general election, Roehrkasse said.

Although there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the Spanish election, Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero unseated Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose government supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.


Protest now. Tell the government that this will NOT be allowed. That, if they truly want to claim that we stand against terrorism, and will not bow to demands, the very thought of delaying elections is anathema. Jesus. The thought that anyone even considered this...that anyone thought it was a good idea...! Bitch slap! This calls for a mega mult-handed bitch slap. Come on, everyone join in...

Comments

[marinarusalka.livejournal.com]

Who do we protest to, though? Is it something Congress would get to vote on (meaning, we petition our Congressperson), or is Dubya just thinking of declaring it from on high?

[mcurry.livejournal.com]

If you want to put the mechanisms in place to keep your man in power for an indefinite period of time during some poorly defined state of emergency, it is a good idea. It's not like it's a trick that's never worked in other countries.

So the question is which of them are just stupid and which of them are actively plotting the end of democracy.

[lagilman]

Make noise. Make lots of noise. It's more difficult to do things like this when people are shouting and pointing.

Homeland InSecurity is already reportedly saying that rescheduling the elections would be impossible, so it sounds as though they're trying to save face. Keep the pressure on...

[kefiraahava.livejournal.com]

If you're trying to prevent an attack (if indeed there is that level of chatter and it isn't disinformation), it would seem to *me* that gee, you know the day elections happen. So does the opposite side. Okay, that's a given.

So it would seem logical to me that *you come up with a coherent plan to deal with securing the known date,* and not throw more spanners into the works and create more chaos and hence more opportunities for the opposite side to slip in and make trouble.

Besides--and I apologize if this sounds really cold-blooded--if I were in Bush's camp, I'd be calculating the odds of an Election Day attack helping his votes versus the odds of it helping Kerry's votes. Could go either way. So why not, by those calculations, just have Election Day and see what happened?

*sigh* Someone really should have pointed out the bad PR, at least, if not the utter ridiculousness/wrongness of it.

Me, I'm more worried about the [deleted] conventioneers making my commuting life hell for the time they're in NYC than I am worried about a terrorist attack during the Republican convention. That may be a lack of prioritizing on my part, but whatever.

[lagilman]

*sigh* Someone really should have pointed out the bad PR, at least, if not the utter ridiculousness/wrongness of it.


I've long been convinced that they have some college-aged closet liberals running the Bush campaign PR office. If it makes them look bad, they've done it, so far.

Me, I'm more worried about the [deleted] conventioneers making my commuting life hell for the time they're in NYC

I'm so very glad I won't be anywhere near Manhattan during the convention. Call me cold-blooded, call me heartless, call me well out of that disaster.

[editrx.livejournal.com]

Thank goodness! You have a copy of the original article at CNN!

They have changed the wording to slant it more without noting that it was "edited" at all. Within about an hour, I looked at it, and now it's different.

Don't even get me started. It isn't the first time CNN has done this sort of thing.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

This came up on twistedchick's LJ too, a while back. My thoughts on the subject are mixed.

1) Since it took a Supreme Court fiat to put the current administration in place (and a later recount showed that the popular vote did, indeed, go the other way) I'm not wildly surprized that the notion of delaying elections in these times of war and trouble has been floated to see who shoots at it.

2) Roosevelt did this, it's why he had the longest administration ever. However (and Bush and co. have probably not taken this into consideration) after he did it, laws were put into place to make it not happen again. Which is why they're talking about delaying and not cancelling.

3) Here's where the devil's advocacy comes in. Suppose something drastic does happen. Not before the election, but on November 2 itself. What DO you do about the people who are barred from voting because they're being dug out? Does a vote "count" if the person who cast it is deceased by the end of the day? With all the electronic voting machines, what happens if a power spike (or organized strike) fries their records?

Mind you, the questions go the other way. If the election day is shifted, what happens to all the votes that have been already cast? How do you get the full faith of the populace to trust you not to declare elections suspended entirely? Etc. etc., etc.

[terri-osborne.livejournal.com]

Something drastic happening on election day has always been a possibility. What makes now any different from the 2000 election? It doesn't even have to be a terrorist attack. Any number of things could put a whole precinct or more under. What about an earthquake? Or a major blizzard (we are talking November here)?

A terrorist attack on election day has ALWAYS been a possibility. The only thing that (IMO) makes now any different is how many more factions Bush has pissed off since he took office. Personally, I'll be more surprised if nothing happens on election day, m'self.

Postpone election day? Why don't we just have the Supreme Court decide who the nation elected president?

Wait a minute.....

[alexkaufmann]

1. We elect presidents through the Electoral College, not popular vote. If you'd like to talk about judicial fiats, we can bring up the Florida Supreme Court changing the rules the state legislature (who have constitutional authority) made.

2. Roosevelt did NOT do this. He was elected FOUR times. The Constitution was thereafter amended to prevent anyone from being elected more than twice (a stupid law).

3. NYC was holding a mayoral primary on 9/11. The election was canceled and rescheduled. Somehow, the Republic stood.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

We elect presidents through the Electoral College, not popular vote.

The Electoral College - a badly outdated body these mass-media days - is supposed to follow the popular vote of that state. We do not directly elect presidents via popular vote, but the movement of the citizens to the polls is not supposed to be a meaningless gesture.

The Constitution was thereafter amended to prevent anyone from being elected more than twice (a stupid law)

An excellent law - it prevents Presidents For Life as they have in several banana republics, and it equally prevents the permanent disenfrancisement of the party not in power. And regardless of specific technique, my point still stands - Roosevelt held onto office citing the need for a steady Presidential hand in times of trouble, which is pretty much Bush's platform. And laws were put into place because of that to prevent anyone from "hogging" the office, so to speak.

The election was canceled and rescheduled. Somehow, the Republic stood.

If you go back and read what I wrote, I'm not completely opposed to rescheduling elections. I just want very, VERY clear guidelines on the topic in place.

[lagilman]

Just as a data point from someone who was there, the elections actually saved lives that day. The death toll would have been much higher if people hadn't stopped on their way to work to vote.

Civic Duty. It just might save your life.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Civic Duty. It just might save your life.

Equally importantly in our cases, some very brave women went through several circles of hell to make sure we had an equal right to walk into the polling booth.

So question - how DID they postpone the election? Because as Terri points out, it doesn't have to be terrorists putting the kibosh on.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

It doesn't even have to be a terrorist attack. Any number of things could put a whole precinct or more under.

I keep thinking of the East Coast blackout and all the electronic voting machines we're using this time. Conspiracy theories about the new-fashioned machines aside, one failing piece of old-fashioned technology can disenfrancise entire states.

[terri-osborne.livejournal.com]

Well, the subways were shut down in the city almost immediately, and didn't come back until about 3:00 that afternoon.

I think, but I could be misremembering, that I heard the news about the election reschedule at the same time I heard the subway was being shut down.

They essentially postponed the election at precincts in and around the city. They announced a couple of days after 9/11 that it would take place 2 weeks later, on 25 September. I don't remember if they kept the votes that had been cast or not. Does anyone else?

[alexkaufmann]

The popular vote is sometimes meaningless. Although it's only happened 4 times in 54 elections, the popular vote winner CAN lose the electoral college.

You'd need a constitutional amendment (and the approval of 38 state legislatures) to change the system. Too many small states gain disproportionate influence through the EC for it to have a prayer of changing.

The 22nd Amendment doesn't prevent "Presidents for Life." Those are prevented by four year terms of office. It prevents individuals candidates from running more than two successful campaigns. Read what I wrote above, Roosevelt won FOUR elections. He wasn't President for Life, he ran for the job FOUR times. He won FOUR elections.

If you'd read the news articles, you'd know the whole point of this exercise has been to provide those clear guidelines.

[alexkaufmann]

The NYC Board of Elections had legal power to suspend the election and did so.

They did not keep any of the votes cast. it was a complete do-over.

The whole purpose of the recent discussions has been to provide the federal government with the same procedures in case of the same events.

[lagilman]

If you'd read the news articles,

WHo are you speaking to, Alex? Becauase I've read all the articles. Both the original ones and the later-edited ones. So have a bunch of other folk here (I know this because we've discussed them offline).

Please clarify or retract your comment.

[alexkaufmann]

My bad.

The LJ formatting is still new to me and I should have quoted what I was responding to.

I've been having a back and forth with fgwriter. I was responding to her post responding to me.

[harmonyfb.livejournal.com]

Does a vote "count" if the person who cast it is deceased by the end of the day?

All that counts is that they're alive at the time the vote was cast. If they drop dead a millisecond after their ballot goes in the box, it still counts.

[harmonyfb.livejournal.com]

Well, presumably states have contingency plans for non-availability of electrical power. (Read: portable generators or hand-punched ballots) Not like nobody's ever thought of it.

[harmonyfb.livejournal.com]

Although it's only happened 4 times in 54 elections, the popular vote winner CAN lose the electoral college.


One of the times, in fact, was with John Quincy Adams, who was also a former president's son. Interesting, huh?

[alexkaufmann]

John Quincy Adams

Also interesting is that JQA didn't win a majority in the electoral college either. Adams, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay had to have their three-way deadlock broken by the House of Representatives.

That's only happened twice, 1800 and 1824.

Another electoral college winner who lost the popular vote was Benjamin Harrison in 1888. He was the grandson of a former President.

To the best of my knowledge, no one who's lost the popular vote but won the electoral college (or the House of Representatives), has been re-elected.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Not like nobody's ever thought of it.

I'm sure they've thought of how to handle localized blackouts. But a state-wide backup system? A local generator will run the poll, but not get the information upwards in the system. Paper ballots would have to be counted in time to notify the Electoral College. Can all the backups be coordinated?

Not to mention the cascade of problems if several states go out, as they did in the last major blackout.

We as a nation are good at handling things on the local level, but pretty terrible at large problems. In the four years since the last election the bugs haven't even been worked out of the old counting systems, and now we're talking about making alternatives work as well.