further elections not needed

It's good to see we're in safe hands.

Further elections indeed seem irrelevant -- since they are massively falsified at every opportunity through a corruptible voting system.

A Prediction
There will be a massive terrorist attack within the USA about a month before the 2004 election. The election will be postponed and the present Regime will stay in power for at least another year. Copy this and put it on a floppy of CDR and see if this preciction was correct.

I'll wait for CDK's prediction, thank you very much.

I see you've attracted a crowd here Dys. Better get your gasmask on.

Speaking of gas masks. Is that a zero ghg-emission vehicle in your avatar, or a polluting one? Did you know up to 30% of the planet's ghg artificial emissions comes from private transport? Did you know more people die of cancers caused by urban transport pollution than in car accidents?

Re: A Prediction

Seconded.

{shudder}

LittleK:

I second your {shudder} !!!


DYS:

This is the kind of fanatical religious maniac that would start WWIII because "GOD" told him to!!

This nut belongs in a straight jacket, locked up in a padded cell somewhere!! I imagine this lunatic is already hearing voices!!

Anon

Re: A Prediction


I made a similar prediction some weeks ago. Don't know the thread, there's been too many. But I think Americans should be very worried indeed.

Are there any people on this site who know enough about the US constitution to say whether it's possible for a US election to be postponed? And what the circumstances would need to be?

Of course....
I sure do not wish any more attacks to happen. I hope I am 100% wrong.

I feel that there are more people that believe exactly as this loony general does, unfortunately.

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/134/yls_article.htm

Interesting article and topic. Might be worth starting up a thread just for this issue.

Excerpts:

Think back for a moment to the reason Sept. 11 was a specially marked date on New Yorkers' calendars: It was a local election day, with contests that included the city's mayoral primary. As the horrific events unfolded, Gov. George Pataki understood that an orderly and democratically satisfactory election that day was impossible. State law allowed him to postpone the balloting. But current federal law does not permit a similar delay of congressional and presidential elections. The law mandates an election on the first Tuesday after Nov. 1, come hell or high water, terror or trauma.

So suppose that a major presidential or vice presidential candidate dies or is incapacitated shortly before Election Day. A patchwork of state laws governs ballot access and counting, and most states allow national parties to substitute new candidates. But in some situations, parties would lack time to deliberate and state officials would lack time to print revised ballots. Without some postponement, voters might not even know whom they were really voting for. If presidential candidate Smith died, would a vote for Smith be counted as a vote for his or her vice presidential running mate Jones, or for some player to be named later by a conclave of party bigwigs?

One option would be for federal law to move the federal Election Day to October, with provision for postponement in rare circumstances. This, of course, would widen the very gap between election and inauguration that the 20th Amendment sought to shrink. A better response would thus be to keep Election Day as is, but allow brief postponement in rare circumstances, with streamlined voting technology, statutes and court procedures to ensure enough time for proper counts and recounts.

The question remains of how--and by whom--a postponement should be triggered. Handing this power to the chief justice risks sucking the Supreme Court into partisan politics, the danger of which is well illustrated by last year's controversy surrounding Bush v. Gore. The current Federal Election Commission may likewise lack the necessary credibility and impartiality. One possibility would be to let each major party (defined as the top two vote-getters in the previous election) trigger a postponement upon request. Parties would hesitate to delay elections for frivolous or partisan reasons because the voters could immediately punish any postponements seen as gamesmanship.

A final issue is whether, in an emergency, to postpone all federal elections or simply the presidential one. Once again, a law could be drafted to specify the decision maker and vest that person with considerable discretion. Because federal law controls only federal elections, each state would decide whether to postpone elections for state officers so as to coordinate with the delayed federal election, or whether instead to hold two elections in short order for state and federal officers, respectively.

GWB 2004: Four more wars!

The national elections were neither postponed nor delayed in the midst of our civil war--i haven't the least doubt that any attempt to suspend elections here would sooner or later lead to armed insurrection. Then the question would be whether or not the Bushites could get the FBI, ATF, National Guard and Army to go out and put down the rebellion.

This thesis about another war and a suspension of the election is nonsense.

So all you need worry about is a terrorist attack to provide ammo for Bush to further "protect" the country?

Were such an event to occur, Bush could not more use it to justify suspending elections than he could a war in progress. Lincoln, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were all re-elected in time of war, and no attempt was made to suspend or otherwise tamper with the national election process, and in Lincoln's case, it was not at all certain that he would win. During our involvement in Vietnam, Kennedy was elected, Johnson succeeded him and was re-elected, Nixon was elected, then re-elected, then resigned and was succeeded by Ford. Never in our history has national crisis of any description even been suggested as a justification to tamper with the election process. It ain't gonna happen.

I think the problem is bigger then just Bush and I think Congress and the Administration will be extremely negligent in their jobs if they haven't introduced and passed laws to cover the loophole in the Constitution and election laws before the next general presidential election.

The U.S. democratic process is vulnerable during the lame duck period after an election. If a candidate were to win the election and then be killed between the election date/electoral college vote and the swearing in ceremony, who would then be president and how would that be determined? Would it be the Vice President-elect?

Imagine the chaos that would be caused in the electoral process if a terrorist attack were to occur on election night at a candidate's celebration party, killing him or her.

If I am understanding that article correctly, those are just some of the gaps that need filling.

I'm really dreading the next presidential election, I feel it will somewhat mirror the Calif. fiasco. Every aspect of the system will be scrutinized and the media is going to pump it up if for nothing else, ratings.

good point, Boss . . . the media's scrutiny would make it damned hard to suspend the election, but would, of course, do nothing to prevent cheating or any other form of chicanery . . . we'll definitely have an election, but no assurance of an honest election . . .

I agree with setanta that the election will proceed according to script. That Bush will try a feat designed to frighten voters into re-electing him also seems a probability. But, not a 911 type of thing.