Election Dilemma: Should We Postpone the Vote?

[JohnDubYa]

Three days before the election, Iraqi insurgents capture six Americans and threaten to behead them if George W. Bush (or John Kerry for that matter) is re-elected.

Should we postpone the elections?

And try to put aside any selfish political motivations when answering.

 

[Gza]

This situation is so utterly screwed up, its hard to choose exactly what to do. The emotional side of me feels that we should give into what the insurgents demand to save their lives; but the cold, rational part of me says we can't simply give in, or we'll set a precedent that allows negotiation to happen with terrorists. I say we send in the spec-ops and get them the hell out of there.

 

[JohnDubYa]

spec-ops have to know where to go. If they don't, then what?

By the way, I think this situation will happen.

 

[member 5645]

Don't touch the elections. Keep them where they are at.

Besides, if the vote goes wrong, the opposing 50% will have a new found respect for voting

 

[amwbonfire]

If John Kerry or Bush win? Those are the two major parties!

This is just like the French head-scarves issue. As a leader, do you back down and give in, thus giving into terrorism (and sending out a bad message, telling people hostage taking is a good way to get what you want)? Or do you stand firm, thus risking their lives (and taking the blame if it goes wrong)?

My sympathetic side says give into their demands, yet when I think about it I see what negative effects giving in could have.

It's not a good situation to be in.

Andy
AMW Bonfire

 

[wasteofo2]

Three days before the election, Iraqi insurgents capture six Americans and threaten to behead them if George W. Bush (or John Kerry for that matter) is re-elected.

Should we postpone the elections?

And try to put aside any selfish political motivations when answering.

1) There was already debate about this, and I believe reading that there was something set up that said that there was no way that any events could delay the presidential election.

2) Didn't Carter partially get thrown out of office because he couldn't do anything about those hostages in Iran? Did he call for a delay in the election then?

3) We've been at war before, we've had horrible crap happening to Americans all throughout the world, hostages being taken and unreasonable demands being made during many Presidential elections. The elections have never been delayed because Americans might be taken hostage and terrorists or whoever might make political demands.

 

[BobG]

Three days before the election, Iraqi insurgents capture six Americans and threaten to behead them if George W. Bush (or John Kerry for that matter) is re-elected.

Should we postpone the elections?

And try to put aside any selfish political motivations when answering.

Theoretically (in less technological age with reduced media attraction), the best response is to not even publicly acknowledge that a threat has been made. Even in today's world, the behind the scenes efforts to determine where they are and to rescue them should certainly be made, but you don't postpone the election.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think strong intel of a likely attack on the mainland will cause a postponement, rather than threats by terrorists to behead hostages.

Addendum to DubYa's Question (if I may) : If a spec op team is sent in and fails (or even otherwise)...and a day before the elections, videos of the beheadings make the news...then what happens ? And how will this (if at all) affect voter thinking ?

 

[GENIERE]

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! It doesn’t matter whom you vote for in choosing a president. The Electoral College elects the president. That the states usually insist that their electors vote for the person receiving a plurality is nice but it is a right given to the states to determine. Since 1917, we can elect senators, but it would require a federal constitutional amendment to elect the president via popular vote. In 2000 the Republican’s having control of the Florida could have required their electors to select GW Bush even if he received no popular votes at all! There is no mechanism for delaying a presidential election because it doesn’t exist.

 

[studentx]

not postpone and 100.000 extra troops to Iraq

 

[Gza]

spec-ops have to know where to go. If they don't, then what?

If they can't even find them, why are they so "special"?

 

[ray b]

2) Didn't Carter partially get thrown out of office because he couldn't do anything about those hostages in Iran? Did he call for a delay in the election then?

NO delay from carter BUT
ronnie raygun did a arms for hostages deal thru col north [iran-contra]
part of the deal was DONOT LET THEM GO intill Carter is out of office
sure enuff this came to pass as planned

why col north is called a hero, and raygun was not throwen out of office over this I will never understand
treason fraud and trading with hostage takers are not minor crimes like a BJ

 

[Gokul43201]

If they can't even find them, why are they so "special"?

They are not "special" because they can find hidden terrorists. In fact, that's not even their job.

Their job is to attain certain objectives through the use of force, under "special" circumstances. When you say spec ops, that stands for Special Operations : it's the operation that is described as being special, not the team.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Do any of you really think it is a good idea to hold an election when foreign insurgents are extorting American citizens into voting in a particular fashion?

It seems to me that if a significant portion of the American public swings their vote because they don't want to see fellow Americans slaughtered, then every election is going to become dangerous.

What message would we send? "If five people in the world want to elect a President, all they have to do is capture some Americans and threaten to behead them."

Can we allow just five people to determine our elections? Keep in mind that not everyone is going to change their vote to "rescue" Americans, but all it takes is 5%.

This is unlike the Iranian hostage deal. No one was being threatened with death if the elections turned out in a certain way.

 

[Gokul43201]

Good point. I guess I misunderstood the question, somewhat...

 

[wasteofo2]

Do any of you really think it is a good idea to hold an election when foreign insurgents are extorting American citizens into voting in a particular fashion?

It seems to me that if a significant portion of the American public swings their vote because they don't want to see fellow Americans slaughtered, then every election is going to become dangerous.

What message would we send? "If five people in the world want to elect a President, all they have to do is capture some Americans and threaten to behead them."

Can we allow just five people to determine our elections? Keep in mind that not everyone is going to change their vote to "rescue" Americans, but all it takes is 5%.

This is unlike the Iranian hostage deal. No one was being threatened with death if the elections turned out in a certain way.

OK, but as I said, we've been in wars before, Americans have been killed abroad, taken hostage etc. Never in our entire history has any event caused the delay of an election, and allowing one would be giving way too much power to the government to decide their own fate. Of course you don't think Bush'll do this, but "someone" could potentially use that delay clause to stay in office indefinately. It's not that hard to imagine "someone" getting involved in a military conflict in "some country" and using his executive authority to perpetually delay the election until the situation was more favorable towards him, or just postponing it indefinately.

It's just a scary prospect, having the government be able to say "Now is not an appropriate time for you to make decisions, when things are more favorable for us, we will allow you to decide who you want, but there is no garuntee when that will be." How would you decide what crisis is great enough to delay the election? How would you decide at what point the crisis had been properly mitigated, and who would force the election to be held? Obviously, the govt. (and at this point in time, we have a Republican White House, Senate, Congress and Supreme court, so "the govt." in this case is essentially Republicans) would only delay the election if current events were detrimental towards them, so who's to say that they'd fairly assess the situation, and not take a partisan perspective and just keep allowing delays until there was no chance of the opponent winning, or just not allow elections at all? I have no problem at all seeing Donald Rumsfeld hold a press conference at which he informs us "Current events in Iraq have reached such a degree that you may not vote this Nov. 2, your voting priveleges have been revoked indefinately, you will be told when you may vote again, thank you."

 

[LURCH]

Even if I put myself in the place of one of the hostages, I would still say go ahead with the ellection.

 

[studentx]

Do any of you really think it is a good idea to hold an election when foreign insurgents are extorting American citizens into voting in a particular fashion?

It seems to me that if a significant portion of the American public swings their vote because they don't want to see fellow Americans slaughtered, then every election is going to become dangerous.

What message would we send? "If five people in the world want to elect a President, all they have to do is capture some Americans and threaten to behead them."

Can we allow just five people to determine our elections? Keep in mind that not everyone is going to change their vote to "rescue" Americans, but all it takes is 5%.

This is unlike the Iranian hostage deal. No one was being threatened with death if the elections turned out in a certain way.

Your absolutely right. It happened in Spain so it could happen in the US.
So i say, let each hostage count as ten million votes for Bush. The more they kidnap the less they achieve. That and 100.000 more troops to Iraq.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Even if I put myself in the place of one of the hostages, I would still say go ahead with the ellection.

You are such a brave man.

 

[JohnDubYa]

OK, but as I said, we've been in wars before, Americans have been killed abroad, taken hostage etc. Never in our entire history has any event caused the delay of an election, and allowing one would be giving way too much power to the government to decide their own fate.

Okay, on one hand you are giving the government the power to delay an election.

On the other hand, you are giving terrorists the power to pick the winner.

Which is worse?

Of course you don't think Bush'll do this, but "someone" could potentially use that delay clause to stay in office indefinately.

That's why the law needs to stipulate a maximum delay. I figure two weeks. By that time the people may be able to rationalize a vote for a candidat despite terrorist threats.

 

[LURCH]

You are such a brave man.

No braver than is common, IMO. When the passengers on flight 95 found out that their plane was going to be used to attack the seat of the US government, they staged a revolt, even though they must have known it would result in the plane being driven into the ground. From what I've heard, it seems this decission took only a few minutes to reach, and was unanimous. I think the average American would surrender his or her life rather than become an intrumanent used to attack the US.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, fine. But you missed the entire point: That threats against your life could sway the votes. It isn't just about the hostages. You don't see a problem with (say) five terrorists using extortion to change a US election?

 

[wasteofo2]

Okay, on one hand you are giving the government the power to delay an election.

On the other hand, you are giving terrorists the power to pick the winner.

Which is worse?



That's why the law needs to stipulate a maximum delay. I figure two weeks. By that time the people may be able to rationalize a vote for a candidat despite terrorist threats.

I think giving the government the power to sujectively decide when the public is and isn't ready to vote's extremely dangerous. I really don't think that anyone who's for Bush at this point, with all the stuff that's going on in Iraq, will be swayed by a terrorist taking a few hostages. Besides, as I said before, terrorists have influenced past elections, and Reagan partially got elected on his rhetoric about making America tougher/stronger and getting the hostages back. If a President gets himself into a situation where **** like this is going to happen, he shouldn't be able to bail himself out if some bad **** goes down.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think giving the government the power to sujectively decide when the public is and isn't ready to vote's extremely dangerous.

But is it worse than providing a handful of people in a foreign country the ability to alter the outcome of an election? THAT is the question.

If a President gets himself into a situation where **** like this is going to happen, he shouldn't be able to bail himself out if some bad **** goes down.

I am looking for objective arguments, here. You are letting your anti-Bush stance get in the way of your reasoning.

 

[wasteofo2]

But is it worse than providing a handful of people in a foreign country the ability to alter the outcome of an election? THAT is the question.



I am looking for objective arguments, here. You are letting your anti-Bush stance get in the way of your reasoning.

It's going to seem cold, but my objective argument is "You get yourself into something, you shouldn't be able to bend the rules to get yourself out of it". I don't think terrorists could shift the outcome of the US election frankly, and as I said, I doubt anyone who's seen all these executions of random people in the Iraq, seen all the deaths etc. that have happened in Iraq and still wants Bush for President would really be swayed.

 

[JohnDubYa]

It's going to seem cold, but my objective argument is "You get yourself into something, you shouldn't be able to bend the rules to get yourself out of it".

Hoo boy, one more time... this isn't about BUSH. It is about our election process.

Suppose this is 2008 and a group of terrorists have captured (say) 20 American tourists and are threatening to behead them if the US elects a Jew for President. Suppose Liebermann is ahead in the polls by 2%. His opponent is Zell Miller. Should the elections be postponed?

You say you don't THINK such a situation would change the outcome of the elections. But what if you are wrong? What kind of precedent would we set if Zell Miller wins the election, and it appears the terrorists threats are one reason why?

 

[wasteofo2]

Hoo boy, one more time... this isn't about BUSH. It is about our election process.

Yeah, I get it, and I think that should hold true with everyone, regardless of who they are. No one else has ever asked for it, and I'd be willing to bet simmilar situations have arisen before.

Suppose this is 2008 and a group of terrorists have captured (say) 20 American tourists and are threatening to behead them if the US elects a Jew for President. Suppose Liebermann is ahead in the polls by 2%. His opponent is Zell Miller. Should the elections be postponed?

In this situation, where Bush gets 2 terms, and in 2008 both of the candidates are just senators, I don't think they'd even be able to delay it, would they? I mean, does Lieberman have any more power than Miller? A sitting President could possibly force a delay of election, but I doubt in a Situation where neither candidate is incumbent either of them could delay the election for their own gain. I mean, I prefer Democrats, but I don't think Democrats are immune to corruption/scumbaggery.

I'd still be opposed to it though. Let's say in 2008, when this kidnapping occurs, the Senate and House have a majority of Democrats, and they decide to pass legislation allowing for the postponment of Legislation. Even though Lieberman himself (besides his one vote) wouldn't have the power to control when the elections would be held, I wouldn't want someone's party being able to control when the elections were held so that their candidate gets the best shot either.

Allowing the date to be changed is just too scary a prospect for me, becuase whoever's got the majority of the house, the most judges in the supreme court, control of the whitehouse etc. would be able to dictate when or not the conditions were right to hold a vote so that their candidate would have a "fair" chance at victory.

You say you don't THINK such a situation would change the outcome of the elections. But what if you are wrong? What kind of precedent would we set if Zell Miller wins the election, and it appears the terrorists threats are one reason why?

It's a tough choice, certainly, I would hate for terrorists to be able to decide the outcome of our election, but I'd also hate for either party (whoever's got the majority of control) to be able to decide when circumstances were best to get their guy elected. I think it would actually be kind of comical (in a macabre way) if terrorists pushed some buttons and got Zell Miller into office. That guy doesn't seem like he'd exactly be "soft" on anything, including terrorism, he's fukin nutty.

 

[BobG]

wasteof2, you're getting to caught up in the details.

This is kind of a perplexing problem.

There have been some hostages released when demands were met - the Fillipino truck driver being released after the Phillipines removed the 51 troops 'earlier than originally planned' being one example.

My opinion is that you never give into kidnapper demands from terrorist groups. But that doesn't change the fact that some do give in. If terrorist groups release hostages when their demands are met, this creates a real dilemna for voters. Their vote literally becomes a 'life or death' decision for another human.

As long as the US maintains a strict policy of never giving in, the US public's feeling that the hostages will be killed regardless of how the election turns out might be maintained. But, I wouldn't guarantee it.

Not only is this scenario a possibility, I think it is a pretty good likelihood that something along these lines will happen.

 

[wasteofo2]

wasteof2, you're getting to caught up in the details.

It would be a very complex situation if that happened, there are lots of details that need to be considered.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's the problem : JW said, the Election should be postponed by a maximum of 2 weeks, by which tiume the people should be able to rationalize their decisions.

How does this work ? What "force" makes the people go back to their original decisions after 2 weeks ? If they don't go back to their original decisions, that means their new decisions are influenced by the terror event.

The key to this situation is the external force that allows the people to feel freed of the responsibility for the lives of the hostages. This can only be provided by the Govt. either through a rousing speech or through sleight if hand.

What happens if today terrorists announce that they've captured say 25 people (all Americans ) and will execute them if anybody shops from ...say Abercrombie & Fitch over then next 2 months. They also claim that they have members of the Islamic Brotherhood, spread out all over the country, and additionally the media will now be monitoring every A&F store about. If there is word of a single person entering an A&F store, all 25 hostages will be executed.

Well that's basically the same thing, and it's what terror is all about. And clearly, it's the responsibility of the Govt. to take away the burden from the people.

 

[wasteofo2]

Here's the problem : JW said, the Election should be postponed by a maximum of 2 weeks, by which tiume the people should be able to rationalize their decisions.

How does this work ? What "force" makes the people go back to their original decisions after 2 weeks ? If they don't go back to their original decisions, that means their new decisions are influenced by the terror event.

Not just that, but what if there's one occasion of a hostage taking on Oct 30, then we get the 2 week delay, but on Nov 10, there's another hostage taking trying to sway the election, then again by a different group on Nov 12. Would we just hold the elections on Nov 14 regardless of the new hostages, or would we keep delaying it by 2 week incraments?

 

[LURCH]

Okay, fine. But you missed the entire point: That threats against your life could sway the votes. It isn't just about the hostages. You don't see a problem with (say) five terrorists using extortion to change a US election?

I do not think that it is a question of giving power to the terrorists or giving it to the government. If we hold the ellection as scheduled, then it may be influenced by the terrorists, but if we allow their act of hostage-taking to delay the ellection, then it definitely is. We can let them have a power that is a matter of opinion, wherein they might claim that they have effected the ellection, and someone else could say that they didn't, or let them have the undisputable power of postponing the ellection. In this latter case, the proof that they controlled the ellection would be beyond refute.

As a sidenote, I think that such a situation would garner votes for the candidate being prohibitted by the terrorists (using the hypothetical situation from the OP, Bush). Not only does the American government have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but the American people, as individuals, do not respond well to terrorist threats. Some who are undecided will choose Bush just to send the Terrorists the message, "we will not be intimidated". Others will take the kidnap and demand as proof that the candidate is effective against terrorists, or they would not fear his ellection. In addition to this, the incident will cause a hightened awareness of terrorism, which allways goes in favor of the Republican candidate.

 

[BobG]

One possible solution is to hold the elections, knowing the results of the election will not be released until the hostage situation is resolved or until right before the deadline for choosing electors for the electoral college (I think the electoral college meets Dec 13 this year).

One side benefit is the justification for banning polling at election sites and people on the West coast casting their votes having no idea how voting has gone on the East coast.

Oh, but how to handle the recounts when you can't even release the fact that a recount is needed.

Edit: And what do the candidates do while awaiting the results? Actually, kind of an interesting scenario.

 

[JohnDubYa]

If we hold the ellection as scheduled, then it may be influenced by the terrorists, but if we allow their act of hostage-taking to delay the ellection, then it definitely is.

I don't think there is any doubt that their actions would influence the election, one way or the other. Given a sample population, you will always find a certain percentage of people who are influenced in one way or the other.

Suppose that we go ahead and hold the elections, and the terrorist threats appear to have altered the outcome. (For example, a certain percentage of people admit that they changed their vote so that twenty people were not killed.) Would you be willing to consider a postponement the next time this incident occurs?

 

[JohnDubYa]

BobG, your idea would allow both parties suffiicient time to claim shenanigans before the results are announced. I don't think that's a good idea.