k wrote:
] I guess, at present, i'm leaning towards the opinion that
] voting is a duty, an act of patriotism even, and that if you
] have to do it during a time of danger or instability, then you
] should suck it up and do it. I'm interested in other
] opinions, certainly... for now, I'm not ready to accept that
] someone who isn't congress should be able to play this game.

I don't agree. When terror attacks occur a great deal of time passes when emotions are extremely high and there is widespread confusion. This can, and has, impacted elections. People should make electoral choices when their minds are clear.

Imagine what would happen if there was a string of bombings of voting locations on election day?

However, any way of addressing this issue should have a very clear structure. No more then a certain amount of delay should be allowed, and only under certain circumstances.

Decius wrote:
] When terror attacks occur a great deal of time
] passes when emotions are extremely high and there is
] widespread confusion.
]...
] No more then a certain amount of delay should
] be allowed, and only under certain circumstances.

[ How long is appropriate? 2 weeks? A month? Is a month enough time to calm people down? No matter how long it is, the candidates will have an absolute field day, pointing fingers and screaming at the top of their lungs, which will only keep the matter present in people's minds. It took months following 9/11 to reach a point where *anyone* was speaking rationally about it and being heard by the public.
I think that any attack will inevitably influence the election in a very signifigant way, even if it's delayed a month or more, so it seems pointless to bother with the delay. I could be in favor of per-district delays possibly, in areas where we have intelligence regarding a specific threat to public safety. Of course this leads to all kinds of problems with knowing the outcome of other states, etc... which is a problem i already have. I think exit polls should disappear, and no one should expect to know a fucking thing until at least 24 hours later, but that's probably unlikely to happen.
It's a difficult problem, certainly, but i really don't know that delaying will end up being a better solution to the electoral issues (though, again, i accept the notion that public safety needs to be considered).
What i'd like to hear the pres say is :
"Personal politics aside, the electoral process is one of the key foundations of our system of government. On election day, Americans should show the world that we will not be cowed into submission, but will exercise our freedom to choose the leadership of our nation. Each person, of their own free will, casting their vote for the candidate who will best represent them. The US government will do what it takes to ensure that the requirements of public safety are addressed while having a minimal impact on the electoral process."
It should be a matter of patriotism to vote your mind, but all too often these last 4 years it's been insinuated or outright stated that patriotism involves supporting Bush and the current administration. I have little faith that that's going to change over the next few months, but i'd sure like it if it did. -k]

Decius wrote:

] However, any way of addressing this issue should have a very
] clear structure. No more then a certain amount of delay should
] be allowed, and only under certain circumstances.

We need to watch the legislation very carefully when it hits:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

It will change rapidly I'm sure. What I'm concerned about is if there is language that allows for suspension of elections just based on a threat.

It looks like this would take a constitutional amendment though. I wonder if they'll try to sneak this into the ban of gay marriage amendment they want.

Decius wrote:
] k wrote:
] ] I guess, at present, i'm leaning towards the opinion that
] ] voting is a duty, an act of patriotism even, and that if you
]
] ] have to do it during a time of danger or instability, then
] you
] ] should suck it up and do it. I'm interested in other
] ] opinions, certainly... for now, I'm not ready to accept
] that
] ] someone who isn't congress should be able to play this game.
]
]
] I don't agree. When terror attacks occur a great deal of time
] passes when emotions are extremely high and there is
] widespread confusion. This can, and has, impacted elections.
] People should make electoral choices when their minds are
] clear.
]
] Imagine what would happen if there was a string of bombings of
] voting locations on election day?
]
] However, any way of addressing this issue should have a very
] clear structure. No more then a certain amount of delay should
] be allowed, and only under certain circumstances.

Interestingly, the CNN article states, "...there is no evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, ..." which was not the perception at the time.

lclough wrote:
] Interestingly, the CNN article states, "...there is no
] evidence that the bombings influenced the March 11 vote, ..."
] which was not the perception at the time.

The perception of whom? Of the Republican right in the US? Well, agreed, but self-interest was at work in that case. Most other commentators, at least outside the US, recognised that the election was lost by the invasion of Iraq and not by the Madrid bombings. At most, the bombings encouraged people to vote for what they already believed - that the occupation was illegal and unjustified, and that their government could not be trusted - and that of course, is called democracy.

skullaria wrote:
] ] 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.
]
] If we have terrorists bombing election posts all over the
] place, well, I guess that we have worse problems than who gets
] elected anyway.
]
] This would set a dangerous precedent, based on fear and
] irrationality. I don't want to hear this bullshit.

Let's see if an outsider can get a grip on this: an increasingly unpopular president heads towards an election. Shock horror attacks by "evildoers" followed by GWB saving America (again) followed by "free and fair elections".

And of course people will freely and fairly choose if they wish to vote for the opponent of the man who just saved the Homeland from Forces of Evil - or do their Patriotic Duty and elect their Great Leader back to the Whitehouse ...

Is this what you in the USA call a "no-brainer"?

Did someone move USA politics to central Africa when I wasn't looking? :)