Firstly, delaying the elections after a terrorist attack would only encourage them by showing them that they have power.JohnDubYa said:The purpose of the postponement is to serve notice that elections will take place, regardless of whether or not terrorists strike. It is designed to keep the election process running smoothly.
Well, they get people used to the idea of elections being delayed and otherwise monkeyed with. Then, they probably hope, they can eventually turn elections into a farce (which the 2000 election was) or not have them at all.But seriously though, how would postponing the election by (say) two weeks subvert the democratic process? Explain how this changes anything.
The proposal would place control of the elections in the hands of one man, the Election Assistance Commission chairman.
This administration has a steady histor of saying, "give up your civil liberties and rights and dissent, and trust me to take care of you in these oh-so-dangerous times."
There would be no reason to think that we would need a national postponement. Individual States can already make postponements. Terrorists are not going to attack all the major cities. They just don't have the capability.