k wrote:
] [ I wouldn't say I'm riled up, but I still question the
] functional outcome of such a delay.

John Perry Barlow just posted a rant in which he waxed from a conspiracy theory about election delays to a literal fear that he might be held as an enemy combatent for posting in his blog.

I don't mean to say I don't see room for discussion here. I can't refute your arguement that the length of time needed to get everyone to calm down might exceed the amount of time that you can reasonably delay an election. It depends on the situation. A 9/11 style attack which is very dramatic and thousands die would have a more lasting impact then a more run of the mill scenario. I think there are scenarios where a few weeks might help. Obviously there has to be a hard limit to this.

One thing that really troubles me is that attacks on voting places themselves could make people afraid to vote, which would be difficult to address. If this started occuring we'd end up moving rapidly toward internet voting, which is very difficult to secure, and impossible to protect against voter coersion.

Wrapping back around, what I am saying is that most of the commentators I'm reading who are opposed to this aren't arguing about the question, they're arguing that Bush is trying to take over the world. The right, by the same token, seems to reflexively support this idea for entirely partisan reasons. Its getting on my nerves.

] I still think it'd be beneficial to spread voting out over a
] longer time frame, like days, but the logistical issues of
] keeping results secret for that long may render such a change
] impossible.

Yeah, exit polls from day one would impact the results of day two. Same way the primary system puts control of the Presidential election in a handful of states which were, ehm, carefully selected by the parties for their purposes.

] Anyway, i've hardly heard talk of it recently... the
] strikingly well timed Berger incident is overshadowing pretty
] much everything else.

What do you mean by well timed? Is there something else going on that we're not paying attention to because of this?

Decius wrote:
] k wrote:
] Wrapping back around, what I am saying is that most of the
] commentators I'm reading who are opposed to this aren't
] arguing about the question, they're arguing that Bush is
] trying to take over the world. The right, by the same token,
] seems to reflexively support this idea for entirely partisan
] reasons. Its getting on my nerves.

[ That's definitely fair, and speaks to sort of an endemic problem these days... ]

] Yeah, exit polls from day one would impact the results of day
] two.

[ .. well, there's nothing saying you have to let people take exit polls, or let them publish them at least, until later, but no matter what, people would talk, news would leak, and the voting on day 5 would differ substantially from the voting on day 1. ..]

] What do you mean by well timed? Is there something else going
] on that we're not paying attention to because of this?

[ The 9/11 report comes out tomorrow and the Dem. convention starts monday. Undoubtedly the report will get coverage, and it may be enough to push this thing into minimal coverage mode where it belongs, or I hope so at least. But it still distracts from Kerry's last minute pre-convention campaigning (since he has to spend all his money by next thursday), requiring him to waste time answering questions about it and refuting accusations of wrongdoing. Also, this investigation into Berger has been ongoing since October. It seems incredibly coincidental that it would come to public light just now, after 9 months. -k]