A SERIOUS ELECTION QUESTION

[newscaster]

Since the founding of this country, we have peacefully elected our presidents every four years. We may not have like the guy who got elected but we accepted our fate like civilized people.

Our country is not drastically divided and there are an awful lot of guys on the neocon side of the fence that scare the hell out of me.

My question.......

Once Kerry is elected, can we be reasonably sure these new style republicans will accept the results of the voting peacefully or should we be prepared for the possibility that our streets become akin to some third world nation with violence around every corner?

I hope my concern is pointless but what if it isn't?

[incapsulated]

1. Win first, worry later

Besides, we can fight back with real assault weapons now!

Seriously, no, I don't think we will have civil war. Maybe a few nutcases, but I'm not expecting fighting in the streets.

Now, in the congress, that's another story.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. LOL Fight back with real assault weapons

Looks like the GOP screwed themselves over with this one.

[Fear]

2. Ask yourself the question.......

Once Kerry is elected, do you think alot will change? and answer that honestly. Yes he's a better choice.......but......the agenda's...hmmmmmmm

[unblock]

3. why would they bother?

in all likelihood, the right will still control both houses of congress, the supreme court, half the state governorships, half the state legislatures, and most of the media.

that's not the kind of desperation that leads to out and out civil war type violence.


far more likely is that they will start work on bogus impeachment proceedings starting november 3.


i should point out that we did not exactly have the kind of peaceful election result you describe in 1860.

[goodboy]

4. You can't put anything past these bastards...

But just like in the Reagan admin. These criminals have to know that they'll be going to jail when Bush loses.

[Nordic]

5. we should be prepared for anything

I don't trust Bush to not pull some truly horrible thing in order to stay in power, a la Vladimir Putin.

When Kerry wins the election, Bush still has two months to completely destroy the planet.

I thoroughly expect him to nuke somebody and start martial law.

I don't think they're above doing that.

[fugue]

6. The two-month wait is like the Electoral College: OUTDATED

Now it just allows for lame-duck shenanigans. It should be drastically reduced. Two weeks, at most.

[Endangered Specie]

7. Actaully the two month period is more important now than before..

It allows time for the president-(s)elect to pick his cabinent and various spots and seats... every time around there are more and more people the president needs to appoint and consider, 2 weeks would be waaay to short to do that.

[dogtag]

9. Doesn't the two months date back to horse and buggy days?

[tomfodw]

8. No, you need far more time than 2 weeks...

...to put together an administration. There are thousands of appointments that must be made, from Cabinet down to regulatory boards, etc. There's no way you could accomplish that in 2 weeks. Most administrations don't even get it all done their first year in office.

[fugue]

12. If they don't get it done in a year, why two months?

Why not wait a whole year then?

I'm sticking to two weeks. Surely they have their top three picks for each of the big positions already and could send requests election night. If it takes more than a year to fully staff, two months is already arbitrary.

[claudiajean]

14. Inauguration day was changed from March 4 to January 20 in 1936...

...so the modern Inauguration Day does not date back to the "horse and buggy days".

A major factor that you are forgetting is that the election is not over on "election night". More and more states are allowing absentee voting for any reason, and in those states, the absentee ballots are returned with good postmarks (election day) for several days following the election. In Washington, over 70% of voters participate by mail. Oregon conducts their elections entirely by mail. In California, the total in nearing 50%.

If the state is doing it right, then each voter signature is compared to the voter siganture on file before tabulating the ballot, to combat voter fraud. In all three of the mainland Pacific coast states, the absentee ballots are not completely verified and counted, and the election certified for two weeks following election day.

Your "two week plan" would essentially disenfranchise the whole west coast. I would respectfully suggest that California's massive electoral votes are worth waiting for.

The media already puts tremendous pressure on the heavy absentee states to "count faster". I think this is absolutely wrong. I want to see the results counted correctly, not faster.

In 2000 both the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court were under incredible pressure to make decisions surrounding the Florida mess very rapidly to satisfy those who wanted a fast count as opposed to an accurate count.

We got the fast decision and fast count in 2000. I doubt there are any DU'ers who think that result was for the best.

Shortening the period of time between election day and inauguration day any further not only would prevent the new administration from having enough time to put together the Cabinet and, just as importantly, the next two levels of staff which number in the tens of thousands. It is not a small task by any means. While the hiring for the entire administration may go on for a year, these top three levels have to be filled in the two month window.

Can't support your two week plan.

edited for spelling and clarity

[tomfodw]

20. That was for travel reasons

It used to take a very long time to get around in this country, especially in the northern half during the winter. Snow and ice would make large stretches impassable, and the spring thaw would then actually make things worse, turning much of the northern USA into a morass.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Peacefull...Well Kinda

Remember, we're dealing with people who'd rather send your children to die than inconvenience their lives. Sure there are the extremist gun nuts, but that's another issue.

It depends on the results. If the closer the results, the more beligerent they'll be. If Kerry wins and there's a sweep in the House & Senate (my wildest dreams) expect about six months of quiet while they stab themselves, but then a return to the bomb throwing tactics of pre-'94 Gingrich.

If it's closer, and not stolen...we'll have our hands full of wingnuts attempting to spin the victory to as thin as they can.

In either way, I expect a loss to be taken real hard in the Repugnican hive...the knives will be out and the blame game could get real catty and bloody. I'm not quite sure where the rupture will occur, but it will and lots of fun to watch. For example, don't expect Bill Kristol to sit silent...he's been chomping for a while...so will Andrew Sullivan and Bill Safire and Tucker Carlson and so on. The good thing is the BFEE will be silenced again....hopefully for good.

The good thing about having an "open society" is this regime can only steal close elections and then only if the Democrats don't contest. I don't see that happening this year. We've worked too hard and come too far, and many now not only have lazer focus on the prize, but see it as in reach.

Cheers! and thanks for a great question.

[peacetalksforall]

11. They will do what they did in the 90's. They will try to remove a duly

elected President. The think tankers and cabal leaders will be planning and measuring their moves. They will continue to fill every civic governmental seat and seat on boards of education and judgeships and Ag's with born agains or right wing operatives and defenders (the supremem court is important, the local, state, and district seats are equally important), x number in the military will continue to work with the right wing and someone will say Kerry's not my President. And they will continue to undermine the Executive Ofc with lies from intelligence. They will continue to destroy the UN and they will fire up upheavals in foreign lands. With the help of corporate media propaganda operations.

[cheshire]

13. Just my opinion but they are sheep and they say to follow your leader, if

they go back on that they will lose all credability. I also think Kerry should not do as Kennedy did and use protection. I think the *'s are just liable to pull the same thing.

[Paradise]

15. Kerry is truly A Uniter, Not A Divider, unlike *,

and Kerry will bring us together, once again!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. they'll just whine and obstruct...

Respectfully, these tin foil theories are a tad mauch...

[ZombieNixon]

17. either way

My theory is that 11/2 sounds the death knell for the Repukes as we know them.

Two scenarios:

1. Bush loses: the neocons have pinned their hopes on this one guy. If he blows it, there will be a sudden, drastic split between the neocon and moderate/independent wings of the party.

2. Bush wins: given what Shrubya's first term looked like, can you imagine the Blade Runner, Soylen Green, Road Warrior apocalypse he will bring about? If that doesn't prompt a voter revolt among those not taken by the Rapture, I don't know what will.

[Mizmoon]

19. It would be bad for business

The Freeponistas suck but I have enough faith that they would vacate the WH and try again next election.