Delay the November Election?

True..... Even algore's own so-called homestate realized what kind of a liberal idiot they would unleash on this country and didn't want to be any part of it. Just like the other 36 states of this great country of ours.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:48:14 GMT, "Kurt Laughlin" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

There seems to be a logic problem here.

Having delayed elections because of a terror threat, how are you ever going to have safe elections? Bush is in until there is "no more terror"?

The same way NYC held its delayed primary after the 9-11 attack?

Which ones are those?

Gunner

That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell

Now, Now, Bassie! Turnabout is fair play! Richard Nixon didn't raise a legal challenge when the 1960 election went to the Sainted John F. Kennedy through all the nonsense that was pulled in Texas and Illinois. What, stealing an election is only a Democratic privilege???

Bill Shuey

Nothing the BushCheneyburton NeoCon Christian Reich pulls off amazes me anymore.

OUR CORPORATIONS MUST HAVE SLAVE LABOR TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE! although you never see lower prices........

TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH CREATE JOBS $9.75 per hour with no benefits!

WE IS A FREEDUM LUVVIN' PEOPLE! just wait till Patriot Act XII

The primary elections in a city, even one as large as NYC, are far different than a national election. Primaries are instruments of political parties, not the government. In the case of NYC it really required only the Democratic Party of NYC to make decisions.

The problem that many have with the proposed planning isn't that it's taking place...that seems prudent. The problem is that it's being done by non elected members of the executive branch. Try to set partisan issues aside. This isn't a simple question and shouldn't be decided by former Secretary of State of New Jersey, all apologies to the lovely Garden state. That appears to have been his proposal. It's a serious issue which should be addressed by both house of the Congress. Will that make it tougher to get action? Yes. Congress hasn't yet come up with a plan for its own replacment in case of a massive attack. But that's the whole point. Playing with the instruments of democracy is very serious business. There's a reason it's so hard to amend the constitution or even just to get legislation passed.

So nice to know that you are more of an expert in US law than the supreme court. Have you thought of applying for a job there ? I am sure they need to be told they are wrong.....

Well now, there's the majority of the states (which is irrelevant under any current voting scheme) and total popular vote (which Gore won, but of course, that's not how we decide presidential elections, unlike any other) and there's electoral vote (sort of related but not the same as the majority of states) WHICH BUSH WON.

Note the shouting. There is in fact no way to know how many people in Florida thought they had in fact voted for Bush, Gore, or one of the other candidates, nor is there any certainty with any but the simplest of elections, because intention and result sometimes diverge. Trying to decide what to do about butterfly ballots, dimpled chads, and all the rest of the ambiguities in a really close, really critical election is always going to generate partisan attacks and counter-attacks, even to the point of whacking the Supreme Court (but they're all lawyers anyway, so what's the big deal there?) Both the Democrats and Republicans tried to steal the election in Florida, by seeking remedies that favored their victory. The Gorelets wanted a selective recount, while the Bushies exerted their political muscle to limit and stall out the recount. In reality, there were no moral winners in that battle. Which simply sounds like politics as usual. To the extent we'll ever have a real count (and every method of getting there is subject to too much interpretation for my taste), it appears that Bush got a few hundred more votes in Florida than did Gore.

It would have been irrelevant if Gore had not ignored West Virginia, a state he probably would have carried if he had bothered to pay any attention to it. That fact alone disqualifies him as being deserving of the presidency--overlooking obvious details, relying on obviously faulty data, and making assumptions based upon what everyone knows is true are all intellectually lazy habits that will get a president (and therefore the country) into trouble.

And by the way, the other 13 states are also part of this great country of ours. If you can't live with that, you need to seriously examine your commitment to democracy.

Mark Schynert

Nitpick Bill, that was WEST VIRGINIA and Illinois.......

-- John The history of things that didn't happen has never been written. . - - - Henry Kissinger

Yeah....not Texas....as LBJ would *never* try to pull anything "sneaky".... (*wink*)

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what "Bassie Adriaensen" foisted Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:07:36 +0200 on rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:

Is Bassie trying to say that Mayor Daley was a Republican? Here I thought Tammany Hall was the Democrat machine. Well, wonders never cease.

It being a dull day, I decide to respond to what Old Nick foisted Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:21:00 GMT on rec.crafts.metalworking , viz:

So the alternative is to simply ignore the uncast votes resulting from a real event? Considering that the likely targets are still in the Liberal Democrat camp, that might not be a bad idea. Or should the residents of San Francisco get a chance to vote at a later time if some catastrophe makes it difficult to do during the regular hours?

Of course, this also is a question which hasn't been address in terms of "natural disasters". Say the power is out in New England on election day. "Oh, so sorry, the Democrats don't want you to have an alternate option, the polls will close at eight pm, whether power is up or not."

Considering that the "real" election of the President is in January, the details of how a state chooses its electors is up to the state legislature.

No need until the truth comes out, and no need unless they want to win.

About 20 years ago a Japanese delegation of Engineers were given a tour of the plant where I worked. After the tour there was a get together in the plant cafeteria. The slippage of U.S. technology was a subject that came up. One Japanese engineer smiled and said: "Graduation of U.S. colleges is answer; two lawyers to every engineer. Japanese colleges graduate 4 engineers to every lawyer!"

Bill Shuey

"William H. Shuey" wrote

And about ten years after that their economy imploded - mainly because the banks and real estate market collapsed. (All those engineers couldn't invent their way outta that.) Now they have four unemployed engineers for each of ours . . .

KL "I'm an engineer. Where are my two lawyers?"

None of your free-association pixel babbling amazes me anymore, either.....

Thank you. I never would have known this had you not educated me.....

Exactly. Just as specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution. Imagine - the Founding Fathers already had this all figured out over 200 years ago:

" The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

Bingo. And there's nothing in the US Constitution that requires them to make that decision by popular vote.