Support NeoGAF

[RedDwarf]

All of my nightmares have come true:

"American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

 

[videogamer]

Isn't the election date defined in the constitution? IIRC, it's pretty clear, so if they want to change the election date, wouldn't they have to get an admendment?

 

[Willco]

OMG TITOR WAS RIGHT CIVIL WAR!

 

[Blackace]

hmmm... of all the perfect timing.... (you can see Michael Moore's next book being created right before your eyes.)

 

[Matlock]

Let's just delay it until Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

 

[belgurdo]

It takes time to rig those voting scanners, you know

 

[sc0la]

Though I would consider myself keen on progressive politics, you won't find me at rallies or protests.

however:
If this got heavily considered, I would be out every fucking day.

 

[Phoenix]

No its not possible. None of the branches involved in this have the authority to delay the election. Legally a nuclear warhead could go off in DC and the elections would still take place. That's the legal situation. Now if that were to happen, FEMA has the authority to flip the switch and get the country stable under a state of martial law. There is a clean seperation of powers that deny any administration or department the ability to postpone the electoral process. You'd have to kill the electoral college for any meaningful need to change the process.

"Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election"

 

[Escape Goat]

Just like in the X-Files.

 

[xsarien]

No its not possible. None of the branches involved in this have the authority to delay the election. Legally a nuclear warhead could go off in DC and the elections would still take place. That's the legal situation. Now if that were to happen, FEMA has the authority to flip the switch and get the country stable under a state of martial law. There is a clean seperation of powers that deny any administration or department the ability to postpone the electoral process. You'd have to kill the electoral college for any meaningful need to change the process.

"Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election"

The fact that they're considering it - regardless - sent an actual chill down my spine.

 

[Ripclawe]

All of my nightmares have come true:

"American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

uh considering its isikoff writing this. no, there will be no delay.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

"American counter-terrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about President Bush losing the election this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned."

that makes more sense.

 

[DarienA]

Yes... like we need anything that would extend Bush' term....

 

[MIMIC]

It all makes sense: if there were to be a terrorist attack right before the Nov. 2nd Presidential Election, Bush's support would go straight to hell; all that rhetoric about American being "safer" would bite Bush in his lying, illiterate ass.

And what better way to curtail Bush's defeat by postponing it?

 

[Dan]

It all makes sense: if there were to be a terrorist attack right before the Nov. 2nd Presidential Election, Bush's support would go straight to hell; all that rhetoric about American being "safer" would bite Bush in his lying, illiterate ass.

Most people speculate that the opposite would actually happen, that if an attack occurred Bush's supporters would be strengthened and people wouldn't want to switch in the midst of such action.

I'm not really sure, I can see reasons for support going up or down, and in such a close election, they'd probably both affect different people and result in little. I couldn't care less though, both candidates suck equally.

 

[Drensch]

These people hate freedom! We need martial law and no elections to protect democracy!

 

[videogamer]

Most people speculate that the opposite would actually happen, that if an attack occurred Bush's supporters would be strengthened and people wouldn't want to switch in the midst of such action.

I'm not really sure, I can see reasons for support going up or down, and in such a close election, they'd probably both affect different people and result in little. I couldn't care less though, both candidates suck equally.

Err... my HS Poly Sci class had always told me that bad national disasters or attacks would usually raise the President's ratings. On 9/11, as all the news reports were showing videos, I was even more angry at the attacks as I imagined Bush's ratings rising. However, you do make a point... maybe after a while people would be willing to change leaders, if there were enough attacks that justified "changing the horse".

 

[Dan]

Yeah, I mean, it's tricky. A lot of it depends on the situation going into the disaster. But what makes it even more complicated is that if something does happen later this year, it will be the second disaster in recent time, and it's hard to say whether that would once again strengthen resolve and support or create doubt, especially since there were two wars inbetween... It's complex, and even more so with the country split rather evenly between supporting Bush or supporting his departure.

I'll say one thing though, declaring either possibility as a conclusion is just foolish.

 

[Doth Togo]

John Titor!

 

[MIMIC]

My point: it happened in Spain.

 

[Phoenix]

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.

Better to have the whole truth than the half truths

Election Assistance Commission

The EAC is trying to get complete control over whether or not an election can be postponed.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). Central to its role, the Commission serves as a national clearinghouse and resource for information and review of procedures with respect to the administration of Federal elections. According to the text of HAVA, the law was enacted to,

… establish a program to provide funds to States to replace punch card voting systems, to establish the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections and to otherwise provide assistance with the administration of certain Federal election laws and programs, to establish minimum election administration standards for States and units of local government with responsibility for the administration of Federal elections, and for other purposes.

The EAC doesn't even appear to have either the manpower nor the knowhow to handle such a situation, it should be noted. Best to leave this to FEMA. I'd rather their shadow government and its rules than some last minute attempt to bestow that power to some off the wall organization that shouldn't have it and which wouldn't have clear bounds on how to use that power given the couple of months of thought that would be used to decide that.

 

[GodsTyro]

It won't happen. The outcry would be too strong.

 

[The Fronde]

There was more to what happened in Spain, MIMIC. The government's claim that ETA was behind the attack was tenuous at best and allegations surfaced that they had withheld information about the true perpetrators. This obviously didn't sit well with voters, especially so close to the elections.

I also believe that Bush's rating would go up if there was an attack. Eggplant's right about the tendency to rally around the flag after an attack. There haven't been any attacks in the US in a long time. One near to the election would push people back into panic mode and towards Bush's focus on national security, which is overall "stronger" or at least more well-known than Kerry's.

 

[Ferd]

I would join Titor and the farmers.

 

[MIMIC]

There was more to what happened in Spain, MIMIC. The government's claim that ETA was behind the attack was tenuous at best and allegations surfaced that they had withheld information about the true perpetrators. This obviously didn't sit well with voters, especially so close to the elections.

In your next paragraph, you stated that there is "the tendency to rally around the flag after an attack." That obviously didn't happen in Spain. And what's the difference between lying about the perperators (Spain's scenario) and lying about whether or not the country is safer (the U.S.'s scenario)? Both scenarios are deliberately misleading and, in Spain's case, caused the people to oust their sitting PM.

 

[videogamer]

In your next paragraph, you stated that there is "the tendency to rally around the flag after an attack." That obviously didn't happen in Spain.

I guess then it depends on how the administration deals with the attack afterwards. Also, Spain was already against the war, but the issue was no longer that big by the time the election came by. Perhaps the bombings got the Spanish voters back into the anti-war mood.

And what's the difference between lying about the perperators (Spain's scenario) and lying about whether or not the country is safer (the U.S.'s scenario)? Both scenarios are deliberately misleading and, in Spain's case, caused the people to oust their sitting PM.

I don't recall the US government saying that the country is safer immediately after the attacks. Spain's government pointed fingers at EDTA pretty fast.

 

[The Fronde]

Nobody rallied around the flag in Spain for the elections because the allegations that had surfaced cast serious doubt about the trustworthiness of the current leadership and had done so very near to an election. Moreover, there was a reported al Qaeda claim that the attack was in response to the government's support for the war, a war that Spaniards were firmly against from the beginning.

And there is a notable difference between the two scenarios. Whether or not the U.S. is safer is debatable. It's highly subjective. There haven't been any attacks, but there's more resentment around the world perhaps than before. You could argue all day. Spanish officials had no real evidence to back up their claim against ETA, and they even had to change their position later. Even they acknowledged the mistake, closing the book on any possible debate.

 

[Belfast]

Hey, if John Titor's right, at least I know I have a good probability of surviving, considering the whole Fort UF thing and all.

 

[Willco]

Hey, if John Titor's right, at least I know I have a good probability of surviving, considering the whole Fort UF thing and all.

Take me with you, Belfast!

Seriously, now that we know Titor was right all along, I think we should begin stockpiling important things for the future. Like copies of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 on DVD. Comics. All DVDs by Sam Raimi. Stuff like that. While we're at it, we should send a plane to go pick up Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and Bill Hope so that in the post-Apocalyptic Hollywood they can begin work on Spider-Man 3.

 

[Idle Will Kill]

If they have this "alarming" information right now in July, and can't stop whatever it is in November, I lose all faith in this country and move to Australia immediately.