|
Edited on Wed Jul-14-04 10:52 PM by shockingelk
I've not seen an argument how delaying the election in response to a terrorist attack could be good for Bush other than they'll keep delaying it the next time, and the next time ... which I believe is quite ludicrous.
I don't find the following ludicrous though:
An alert is issued indicating terrorists are planning to deliver biological weapons over West Coast cities using small aircraft. The day of the election, two small planes go missing in CA, whereabouts unknown. An alert is issued that residents of large urban areas on the West Coast should remain indoors and seal the windows. Enough do so for Bush to win California. DHS responds to criticism, ":nopity: We wanted authority to delay the election if necessary, but we didn't get it. This is exactly the type of situation we wanted to avoid."
More importantly though, and this has nothing to do with theories - conspiracy or otherwise: I expect my polling place to be open, fully staffed and accessible by road on election day. I used to live in coastal N Carolina and can think of several days when hurricanes would have prevented large numbers of people from making to their precinct. I believe it's a good idea to decide on what will happen in the event of the closing of an entire precinct on election day.
It could be as simple as this: If, on Election Day, a polling place is closed or inaccessible by road for a majority of those living in the precinct, arrangements will be made to reschedule voting in that precinct one week after the originally scheduled election. What's wrong with that idea?
|