TheSafehouse



Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.




Safehouse Forums



Safehouse Site Info



 

The end is nigh


 

 

 







Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Meddik
Meddik is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC


Meddik's Avatar

 
Here is a morbid thought I hadn't considered...
Reply With Quote   #1

Voting Official Calls for Guidelines for Canceling or Rescheduling Elections Over Terrorism

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON June 25, 2004 — The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.
Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

"I am still awaiting their response," he said. "Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion." Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.

Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said.

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said.

Soaries also said he's met with a former New York state elections director to discuss how officials there handled the Sept. 11 attacks from the perspective of election administration. He said the commission is getting information from New York documenting the process used there.

"The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?" he said.

Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.

"There's got to be communication," he said, "between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November."
Ok, partisan politics aside, What could be done to minimize some of the risks to the election process of Terrorist attacks on or just before an election day?

Extend elections by a certain time period? Who decides if or how long they would be extended? What kind of attack would be a threshold (Could be something relatively isolated like a sucide bomber, or it could be a suit case nuke taking out a city..,) Would the Extension be limited to areas affected, or would it be nationwide?

Most of all, its something that would need to be ironed out early, and with a bipartisan endorsement. Because If anything happened, and it wasn't all agreed upon ahead of time, I can definately see some huge controversies surrounding any irregularities.


Yalum
Yalum is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Apr 2001


 
Reply With Quote   #2

Hmm. I don't think you do anything at the federal level. One hundred million votes will be cast on November 2, it's unthinkable that terrorist activity could directly interfere with more than a tiny percentage of them. If one or two particular states are shut down, then their vacancies in the House, Senate and Electoral College can be filled by their state government in whatever manner they've proscribed.

Really, what are the alternatives? Stopping or voiding the entire national election is a very dangerous power. I'd rather let a state legislature pick the president. If the election is so close that this one state matters, then the country is obviously evenly split anyway.


Nocte
Nocte is offline
n00b!

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Manchester, NH


Nocte's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #3

Yeah, but what if those states are Vermont... or California!

/shudder.

(yes i'm being sarcastic)


Meddik
Meddik is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC


Meddik's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #4

But just imagine the possibilities for Conspiracy theorists...

Lets say an attack occurs in a major metropolitan area. Well, most of your larger urban centers lean democrat, but there are some that are majority republican too.

What if it is a close election, and something like that does influence the election.

Either way, You'd have people saying that either GWB or Kerry had plotted with terrorists to influence the vote by killing off their opposition.

And you thought Florida was bad...


Marbh
Marbh is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lafayette, Indiana


Marbh's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #5

I remember a scifi novel called the First Citzen, something like 20 yrs back that had presiden assassinated. Then the vicepresident. Then each person who assumed the posisiton. Eventually power fell to the speaker of the house. Was kinda a weird book.


Pratell
Pratell is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Ames, IA


Pratell's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #6

Isn't speaker third on the list...?


Marbh
Marbh is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Lafayette, Indiana


Marbh's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #7

Yeah, but in the book nobody wanted to be president after the holder of office kept getting assassinated. Bit of a constitutional crisis.


Raith
Raith is offline
Registered Member

Join Date: Apr 2004


 
Reply With Quote   #8

Martial law ... President takes control of the country through executive order until such a time as he deems it is safe to have elections again ...


Meddik
Meddik is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC


Meddik's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #9

Well, if it didn't fall to that during the civil war, I doubt it would here either.

And I'd be the first to criticize it if that did occur.

But i would like to see some sort of contingency plan laid out.


Dahne
Dahne is offline
Veteran

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Various bits of California


Dahne's Avatar

 
Reply With Quote   #10

Strange thing is, I have no idea whose campaign would be helped if a terrorist attack occured. You could say "This means we need to stand behind President Bush" just as easily as you could say "This means Bush's plans aren't working and we need a change in leadership."




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump







 
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:00 AM.
All posts are
© Copyright 2004-2006 The Safehouse Network