Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

clinging to power 10 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If we had a terrorist attack the week of the election, Bush would be criticized if he DIDN'T postpone the election, because "of course the attack will scare people into voting to keep the incumbent in power."

    I think they absolutely should figure out now what steps would need to be taken to postpone, so that if something does happen and it is deemed to be necessary, it can happen.
    • This is why, among other reasons, we should consider moving from one day of elections to an "election weekend". Still, if we had elections during WWII and the civil war, we certainly ought to be able them during a terrorist attack. Let's not lose our heads (or democracy) over Terrorism.

      • Re:Eh (Score:2)

        by pudge (1) on 2004.07.12 14:02 (#32402) Homepage Journal
        Still, if we had elections during WWII and the civil war, we certainly ought to be able them during a terrorist attack. Let's not lose our heads (or democracy) over Terrorism.

        You're comparing two things -- Civil War, WWII -- which were constant states of war to this, which is about changing the date in the event of a specific attack. They're not directly comparable. I am not talking about, and neither is the federal government that I can tell, delaying elections for months, but days.

        I agree we should not lose our heads, but it is reasonable and responsible to try to figure out how to deal with the problem now, before the date is upon us and something happens.
        • What would be the utility of postponing the elections? Terrorrist attacks can be postponed, too.
          • I think the discussion is about postponing the election when an attack happens, not because of fear of an attack.

            I agree that it isn't unreasonable to think about how to deal with the problem -- possibly including postponements -- rather than wait until it happens and then say "Oh, well, I see that hardly anybody in New York City was able to vote because of the terrorist attack. That sucks for the Democrats, but them's the breaks. Better luck next election."

            On the other hand, considering that this adminis
            • Not only was there a terrorist attack in New York on 9/11/2001, there was also a primary!

              From some guy [techguy.org]:

              «9/11/2001 was a primary election day in NY. When I saw the second tower burning I felt the best thing I could do was to go vote. It is afterall the most democratic thing one can do I was deeply disappointed that it was cancelled. »
              • Not only was there a terrorist attack in New York on 9/11/2001, there was also a primary!

                If he says so, I dunno. But I am not saying it should be postponed in case of an attack, but it's wise to discuss the possibility. Like I said, you know damned well that if there is an attack, and Bush wins, the Democrats will complain that they DIDN'T postpone it.
                • Like I said, you know damned well that if there is an attack, and Bush wins, the Democrats will complain that they DIDN'T postpone it.

                  Now, you just know that if you didn't say that, then people would complain! Therefore you must argue this, by the Parallel Universe Anti-Pangloss Conjecture.

              • There was a primary election scheduled. It ended up being postponed by two weeks [state.ny.us].
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.