How the election postponement/coup will probably go down-realistically

[HamdenRice]

While I appreciate Dookus trying to inject realism into the debate about the plans to postpone or cancel the election, I think he and others are downplaying the very serious nature of the threat to the integrity of the elections. That the president's term must end in January is not in question; the issue is whether a postponement or rescheduling can affect the outcome of the election, such that Bush gets another term.

Remember, the polls show that the election remains very close, and will be decided by a few key states -- even a few key districts in key states -- where there are so called swing voters.

Here is the most likely realistic scenario for Bush using these new powers of postponement to affect the election -- parts of which Mark Maron of Air America has been developing on Morning Sedition:

On or just before election day, "terrorist threats" to disrupt the election will require that the elections be postponed not across the country, but in a few key areas -- perhaps Democratic majority urban areas of swing states. The election will, however, go on in all "red" states and red areas of swing states.

On election night, outlets like Fox news, which we now know from the documentary film, Outfoxed, and other sources, basically take daily "message" marching orders from Karl Rove, will announce that Bush has won almost everywhere, and that "next week's" "clean up" voting in a few key districts is just a technicality. There will be a steady drumbeat from RW media outlets that Bush has all but wrapped up the election.

Between election day and the postponed voting in the key districts, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will feel discouraged from voting in the postponed districts on the rescheduled election date.

We are all aware that one of the most powerful, but irrational, psychological impulses in voting is that when people believe one candidate has won, they stop voting. This is why networks voluntarily decline to predict outcomes until voting booths are closed in the west coast. This is a result of the 1980 Reagan-Carter election, in which it was later discovered that, because media outlets predicted Reagan's win on the basis of east coast results, relatively early in the day, west coast voters basically stopped showing up at the polls.

Bush will win "fair and square" and be sworn in, in time, on inauguration day.

What should we do to prepare? We have to make sure that if the election is postponed in a few key Democratic and swing districts, the momentum for a large turnout is not dissipated, between the regular election day and the reschedule date for those districts.

[Dookus]

1. tell me why it's better

to have the elections come hell or high water on November 2nd if millions of Americans are unable to get to the polls?

The fact is a large-scale terrorist attack will have an impact on the election WHENEVER the election is held.

[Walt Starr]

2. If there is an attack, local authority takes over

There is no need whatsoever for a federal authority to postpone elections.

There is no need to postpone any election because there is a possibility of attack, and that is precisely the authority this administration is seeking.

Think. The original poster lays out a good possibility.

We already have the precedent of the New Tork 9/11 primary. It was postponed for the city. There is no need for a federal authority in this.

[Dookus]

3. You are incorrect, Walt

the US constitution requires all states vote on the same day for President and Vice-President.

[Walt Starr]

7. Quote it

It does not. In fact, there is no constitutional requirement for a popular vote to be held.

The electors cast there ballots on a specific date, but choosing those elecotrs is up to the STATES under the constitution.

Please read the constitution., It's a fine document!

[HamdenRice]

11. Here it is...

You are correct Walt. And it would not even require preventing voters from voting eventually. Bowen43 posted the Article II language:

Article II

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.

Only the electors must vote on the same day, not the actual voters.

Congress is now about to consider a method of "determin the Time of choosing electors" -- namely giving the federal election assistance commission the power to reschedule elections.

[yellowcanine]

12. "Congress may determine the time of chusing (sic) the Electors"

Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years,
and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

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.


Presumabely when the 1st Tuesday in November was set up as the presidential election day it means that it cannot be changed without another act of congress - and congress cannot delegate this power to the Executive.

[HamdenRice]

13. Are you kidding???

You wrote, "and congress cannot delegate this power to the Executive." They do this all the time through regulatory and administrative law, which refers to "rule-making" by executive bodies like the IRS, SEC, INS, FCC and on and on and on...

[Walt Starr]

15. That's why they're floating it

They want to get to a point where they must "regretfully" declare martial law because there is no consitutional mechanism to postpone the election.

[HamdenRice]

23. Trial balloons

I agree entirely. Rarely in Washington are these sorts of things done without some planning. We are slowly being prepared for the "normalization" of a rescheduled election through these subtle, but increasingly common press conferences on the need to postpone parts of the voting.

And we are not being conspiracy theorists -- just looking at one of several very realistic strategies that the WH seems to be exploring.

Unfortunately, the thread has gotten sidetracked from my original point -- which is that it is not going to take anything big, spectacular or stupid for the administration to sway the election. Just the postponement of voting in a few key districts in swing states, and then a drumbeat of "Bush has won" in the RW media.

It's so easy -- and BTW, Rove, like any decent political consultant, has computer programs that allow him to simulate elections and electoral results on a district by district basis.

I put this out there so that we might start thinking about counter strategies beyond the unrealistic "let's storm the white house if this happens."

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HamdenRice]

25. sorry - dupe post

[yellowcanine]

18. Nope - they tried that with line item veto - it was overturned by SCOTUS

Yes, certain details about implementing law are set by regulation - but Congress has some oversight of that as well and public hearings have to be held, etc. Congress cannot delegate a power they are given in the Constitution.

[HamdenRice]

27. Line item veto

The line item veto was entirely a different issue. That involved Congress passing legislation and allowing the president to "cross out" budget items on a line by line basis. That was clearly unconstitutional, and nothing like the routine delegation of rule making to commissions.

Allowing the executive to reschedule or set the mere date of an election because of an alleged emergency is nothing like the line item veto.

[City Lights]

19. The 1st Tuesday?

Election Day is not the 1st Tuesday in November.

Election Day is the 1st Tuesday after the 1st Monday in November.

[Cicero]

16. Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 says Congress determines it

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.

Yes, the manner in which the Electors are chosen is up to the States, but the time for their choosing can be determined by Congress.

Later,

[Walt Starr]

17. Yes, which is why absentee ballots are counted DAYS later in some instance

and how Florida could have happened!

The day electors are chosen is not the same day of the election.

[Walt Starr]

32. Applicable U.S. code:

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Failure to make choice on prescribed day

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

This is not an issue. It's already covered under the law.

[HamdenRice]

6. That's not the point ...

The point is not that we want to have elections, come hell or high water. It is that the administration has already demonstrated that it will do almost anything, even illegal or unconstitutional things, to get power and stay in power.

Just as it used 9/11 to justify the Iraq invasion, it will use a terrorist attack -- or even just the pretense of false intelligence about an impending attack -- to its advantage.

BTW, I live in NYC and was in lower Manhattan on 9/11, which was a primary election day. A lot of non-New Yorkers, don't realize that Rudy "Mousolini" Giuliani tried to use 9/11 to upset the NYC Charter (our constitution) to stay in power.

In the weeks before 9/11, Giulinia had been term limited out as mayor, and when polls showed that New Yorkers were so angry at him and tired of him that in his Senate race against Hillary, he would not even carry New York City, he had to begin planning for his retirement from public office -- using prostate cancer as his excuse.

Then, immediately after 9/11 and for weeks he proposed all kinds of schemes, from demanding that candidates promise that even if they win, Guiliani would remain mayor, to forcing through a Charter amendment.

It didn't work. Local hero columnist Jimmy Breslin called Giuliania, who was being lavished with praise nationally, "a little man in search of a balcony."

But it taught us New Yorkers a very valuable lesson -- a very realistic lesson -- about how power hungry politicians would use terrorism to stay in power indefinitely.

And Giuliani isn't even in the same league of power hungriness as the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz crew.

[phiddle]

4. Can't happen this way

I read the constitutional language in another thread. The constitution mandates that the election for president and vice-president happen on the SAME DAY IN ALL STATES. Ergo, if one state cannot conduct an election, then the results of all are null and void for purposes of selecting a president.

[HamdenRice]

9. The constitutional language refers to electors

That constitutional language refers to electors -- that is, the casting of votes by the state electors on the basis of the popular vote -- not to actual voters.

That's why we can count absentee ballots on days that are different from election day. That's how Florida 2000 could happen, and how some Floridians could propose a "do over" election.

All this would require would be that the electoral college convene some time all together after the regular and postponed election day.

[Abe Linkman]

5. No need to postpone elections for a terror threat...or action.

Voting for President this year, should be done only via write-in ballot. Just like you do for your income taxes. This way, there's also no need to worry about rigged voting machines.

[yellowcanine]

8. Can't happen this way - Election has to occur the SAME DAY across the U.S.

It's in the Constitution. Even Bush can't get around that. Nor can Congress give the right to Homeland Security to postpone the elections. Congress itself would have to meet and vote for a postponement. Also it is not clear that Congress could postpone the congressional elections - only the presidential election - as that is the one that they have the power to set the date for. States choose to hold the congressional elections the same day for convenience. It would be a sticky wicket indeed which is why I predict that this effort will go exactly nowhere.

[Walt Starr]

10. Quote where it says that in the constitution. IT DOES NOT!!!

The The requirement is that the ELECTORS cast ballots and those ballots are read in teh cong4ress.

The method and time of choosing the electors is LEFT TO THE STATES in the constitution!

The only authority Congress has is to change the date of the election for Representatives.

[yellowcanine]

14. States control the Manner - not the Time - Congress controls that. see my

other post or here it is again.

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

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.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

22. Reference to "Electors"

The electors are members of the Electoral College, and they are appointed through elections under the control of the individual states. The federal government has no legal authority to mandate the date of the General Election. I think was can rightly assume that any attempt to alter the date of a state election will be met with a hailstorm of legal challenges.

[yellowcanine]

26. Walt - I'll grant you that there some wiggle room but not much. For

example, Congress could meet and say that if an attack took place, the election could be delayed for some specified period of time. But that is about it. It is still not clear that this would preclude them from having to meet in the event of an attack and saying that yes, the election can be delayed. It is a very sticky wicket.

[Walt Starr]

29. Nope, it's covered

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Failure to make choice on prescribed day

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

[HamdenRice]

30. Great find!

Great idea, going to US Code -- presumably this is the part that will be pithily amended.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. Bush can't get around the constitution?

The Supreme Court selected him, and he managed to declare an illegal war all by himself. Constitution? I doubt he's ever read it. Just like the Bible.

[Literate Tar Heel]

21. I had thought of this

and it's frightening ... a couple smaller-scale attacks targeted at key Democratic districts in pivotal states could end up being much more effective than a large-scale attack in one place and an effort to postpone elections all over ... if they can keep voters from getting to the polls in places like, say, Cuyahoga County, Ohio ... Dade County, Florida ... Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania ... it would go a long way toward keeping them in power (well, that and the Diebold machines, the minority disenfranchisement, and the Supreme Court)

[HamdenRice]

28. Thank you thank you thank you ...

Unfortunately all these threads get clogged up with irrelevant and mostly wrong rebuttals about the inability of Congress and/or the president to reschedule.

Assuming they will be able to under the legislation they tell us they are drafting, they could pull this off so easily!

It might come down to something as small as postponing voting in Cincinnati.

[Walt Starr]

31. It would have to be attacks on the day of the election

otherwise, the election must go on as scheduled according to the constitution.

If an attack occurs on the day of the election, local authority rules under the applicable U.S. code:

TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT

Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

§ 1. The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.

Failure to make choice on prescribed day

§ 2. Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

[HamdenRice]

33. Not clear

Actually it's not clear, and I think this issue came up in 2000. The code says when the electors shall be appointed, but then does not prescribe any penalty if they are not. Moreover, it provides an alternative arrangements for the electors to be appointed on "a subsequent day." I think the problem is that the language is just horatory -- you, states, SHOULD appoint electors on that day, but if you don't you can do so some other subsequent day. Also, this is just code, and would be amended by whatever Congress is planning to do.

I don't see any conflict between this and an amendment that allows Congress to delegate to the executive the ability to postpone voting in a district for national security reasons. I don't think there would even need to be an actual attack -- just that Homeland Security says, they are going to bomb Cleveland, so voting is postponed a day there. the Cleveland attack never comes, but the damage to the election is done.

[Walt Starr]

34. Read the code again, it abrogates authority to the local authority

if the electors are not chosen on the day of the election.

We are covered under the law. If there is an attack and polling must stop, local authority determines when to hold the election again, not federal authority.

[HamdenRice]

35. I understand the code...

I understand the code...but it is the code what the Congress is about to consider amending. (The code is normal law, not constitutional law.) They may as well say, the electors will be chosen on a date that Homeland Security chooses.

Moreover, even if they leave it up to the states to reschedule, even if the state reschedules the next day, if Fox News and others "call" the election without the rescheduled districts, then basically, very few people in those districts will vote on the following day -- if their voting behavior is typical.

My point is starting this "realist" thread is to get ideas on how to prevent the effects of even 24 hours postponement in a swing district. How will the Democrats overcome "normal" voting behavior after an election is called. This is the strategy issue I'm worried about.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

36. Hmmm

Scary scenario, I actually felt sick to my stomach reading it.

I'm going to maintain hope that a series of small-scale attacks in key swing areas would seem a little too fishy for most Americans to swallow.

Also, anti-Bush sentiment is so high that people are going to get out and vote for Kerry no matter what fox news says.

[HamdenRice]

37. No attacks necessary ...

I don't think any attacks are necessary -- just that the federal election assistance commission or homeland security says an attack might occur and postpones in a few districts. Even if no attack ever materializes, the damage will have been done and Bush wins.

[HamdenRice]

38. Buzzflash takes same approach

Buzzflash concurs that there doesn't have to be an attack -- just an allegation that there may be an attack -- for Bushco to suspend elections:

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/07/ana04012.html

Bush Cartel Talks of Steps to Potentially Cancel ("Postpone") the Presidential Election: This is For Real Folks!

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Oh yes, the incendiary BuzzFlash -- and other online publications -- have been engaging in their typical hyperbolic scare tactics when we have warned that the Bush Cartel might actually postpone the presidential election if Kerry and Edwards are poised to win it through the will of the people.

We were just fanning the flames of fear based on the Bush Cartel stealing the election in 2000, right?

Wrong.

In a short Newsweek brief, in Monday's (July 19) edition, by the infamous Michael Isikoff, it is revealed that Tommy Ridge is exploring what would be needed to be done to postpone the fall presidential election, if there were to be a terrorist attack...

<snip>

So, it's got all the Rove fingerprints on it. A relatively unknown Republican Rev. from New Jersey is appointed to head an obscure new commission. Then he writes a letter demanding that plans be made to cancel -- or "postpone" -- the election if necessary. Then Tom Ridge carries the water, as trial balloons are floated to the favored GOP lapdog leak recipient at Newsweek, Michael Isikoff, he of the Linda Tripp "story" fame.

This is beyond frightening. It is the end of democracy in America, if Tom Ridge is granted these powers. And you know, a move will be afoot in Congress to do so.

Lord save us, if the Democrats collapse on this one and let Ridge or anyone in the Bush administration have such powers.

What terrorist attack could prevent a national election from being held?

You see, the Bush Cartel could claim that they have solid information of an imminent attack and postpone the election because they don't want the terrorists to influence the outcome, because, they would argue, that would give a victory to the terrorists.

Which is all another way of saying, the Republicans don't plan on yielding power under any circumstances, the will of the people be damned.

Chilling beyond belief.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS