Is there something that might delay/cancel this November's elections?

[Bullwinkle925]

With the elections fast approaching and the Prez's numbers in the toilet - methinks that something might be afoot to prevent a Democratic takeover of at least one of the branches of Congress.
Can the elections be cancelled by Presidential order??

[Avalux]

1. You betcha.

Some sort of catastrophic disaster where Bush declares martial law....forget about elections.

[Bullwinkle925]

9. I just can't imagine the 'Rovian' WH to even contemplate undergoing

Democratic scrutiny and hearings... these people are arrogant, self-absorbed and tyrannical - not to mention mean-spirited, psychopathic with delusions of grandiosity. And that's just saying it mildly in my H.O.

[William769]

16. And that in turn will cause major civil unrest

You can take that to the bank!

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. The same question has been aksed and speculated about here in DU

in 2002 and 2004.

[The Magistrate]

3. No, Sir

There is not, and they cannot be.

[Talismom]

4. Sir, all I can say is: from your mouth to the ear of the almighty! n/t

[SteppingRazor]

5. Course not...

First off, no one -- not even the president -- can just cancel elecctions.

Second, even if it were possible, the political cost would be so horrendous that it would destroy any possible advantage. That is, the party responsible for postponing elections would be even more likely to be voted out of office, regardless of how unpopular they are at the time of electoral postponement/cancellation

[EVDebs]

8. National emergency declared; stroke of pen = martial law. Read

and think about possible situations * may declare a national emergency

Executive Orders And Laws relating to National Emergencies Laws
http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/laworder.htm

Govt control of all transportation makes getting to polls impossible...just one scenario.

[The Magistrate]

10. For Reasons That Escape Me, Sir

Some find this fantasy enjoyable. But that is all it is.

[SteppingRazor]

12. I'm aware of emergency powers exec. orders, but...

I reiterate my second point. I don't believe the country would go along with martial law, even in the face of another 9/11. It would take something along the lines of full-scale invasion or nuclear war to make this happen and people go along with it. If another 9/11 happened and Bush declared himself king, the eventual result would be the demise of the entire Republican Party, and trials for the entire administration.

Also, in the first place, these emergency powers are an effect without a cause. In order for them to be carried out, you'd need another 9/11 at the very least, and a perfectly timed one at that. This suggests some sort of MIHOP theory, which I think is bunk even in regard to the first 9/11, much less the idea that the government would carry out subsequent ones.

[EVDebs]

14. If the military is behind it and believes in the pretexts...

The military has the firepower to enforce. Just look at America's Tienanmen Square, the Bonus Army March of 1932. They can and will use the force.

[Atman]

17. Wow, did you even listen to what you posted?

No one could cancel elections because of the political consequence...they party responsible would be voted out of office.

By whom, pray tell?

Don't think for a moment that BushCo would do this lightly. They'd make sure they have the proverbial ducks in a row. A national emergency would allow them to declare martial law and cancel elections, and then they can hold off scheduling new ones as long as they damned well please. We, the people, are giving them all the inclination necessary to do just that, because we sit back and do nothing every time the break the next law. Every time the lie and steal and cheat and start wars, we just go "Gosh! They wouldn't really do that, would they?" and it emboldens them even more.

I don't doubt for a moment that they'd cancel elections as the first hint of an opportunity. Especially if it meant keeping their lying criminal asses out of jail. More likely, though, the reason would simply be to stall. To stay in power long enough to force through the "Bush Cannot Be Held Accountable for Anything Act of 2006" or the "Lying To Start A War Is Okay" resolution. Even if they declared martial law and delayed elections for six months, that would allow them to six months of shredding, six months of arm twisting, six months of Wellstoning opponents who would put them on trial. I think you give the top of this administration far too much credit for being actual humans. They are as evil as evil comes. They have their eyes on massive amounts of MONEY and POWER, and the opinions of some low-life trailer-trash ignorant American voters certainly are not going to stop them from accomplishing their REAL mission. Wake up, dude. Get ready to rumble!

.

[Atman]

18. Okay, now that said...

What I really think they would prefer doing at this point is allowing the Democrats to take everything in 2008, because BushCo very cleverly crafted all his tax cuts and evil-doing to fully blow up during that presidential term. That way, should the democrats be in charge, it will be the democrats who will be raising taxes and taking the severe, painful measures necessary to straighten out the mess. They won't be able to enact the health care they've promised because there'll be no money. They'll be no money for ANYTHING. But the GOP will still own the media, and they'll be on every talking head show declaring "TOLD YOU SO! THE DEMOCRATS ARE RAISING TAXES!" and every other badness they can pin on us. And it will work.

Strategically, they just have to survive until 2008, and for that reason, I think they'd be much safer just stealing enough key Congressional seats to maintain control of committees. They won't care if we care "FRAUD!" again, because no one bought it the last time, and their same talking heads will still be on every teevee news station carrying their water.

[SteppingRazor]

19. I'll reserve my I-told-you-sos until after the November elections...

I heard this same thing in 2002 and 2004. It didn't happen then, it won't happen now.

Truth to tell, I'm a bit worried about electronic voting, but I think the idea that elections would be out-and-out postponed or cancelled is absurd

[Atman]

20. No "I told you so" will be needed.

I think I pretty well covered myself in those two posts. I'm hoping for a WH press spokesman job someday! LOL!

Seriesly, I don't really think they'd try to postpone elections. The mood of the country is too dire right now. They'd risk serious, serious repurcussions. My second post (my reply to myself) had what I consider to be the more realistic outcome.

And BTW...I don't recall anyone really predicting the 2002 or 2004 elections would be cancelled. Not seriously, anyway. There was lots of speculation about "Usama attacks" to sway the electorate, but Bush wasn't in the precarious position he is in now. Now he is a cornered rat looking at the very real possibility of criminal charges, and he's a fucking psycho...I wouldn't put anything past him this time. Still, I don't think they'll resort to the Martial Law route. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it, either.

[SteppingRazor]

21. We're actually more or less in agreement, then...

I mean, I can foresee the possibility of it happening, but the odds are so remote as to make it hardly worth discussing. As we've both said, there's just too much potential for negative repurcussions for them to consider it.

Stealing enough elections to remain in power, as you suggested in one of your earlier posts, _does_ seem like a possibility, though. There's no way we're going to win enough seats to utterly control both houses of Congress without question, so the only way for us to take power in 2006 in light of possible electoral fraud is to win what seats we CAN win with such an overwhelming victory that anything untoward will be easy to spot. A narrow Democratic win in 2006 could very well be tantamount to a Republican win.

[bowens43]

6. Nope. Not a chance.

[nickinSTL]

7. MIHOP?

a repeat of that is about all I can imagine could actually interfere with elections.

[hvn_nbr_2]

11. Define "can".

Can the elections be cancelled by Presidential order?

Let's see now. Maybe the Constitution says elections have to happen. Maybe the laws of the U.S. say they have to happen. Maybe American tradition says they have to happen. Have tradition, law, or the constitution stopped this gang from doing anything yet? The unitary executive (AKA absolute monarch) can do anything he wants to do.

[Virginia Dare]

13. They pulled soldiers off the battlefield to vote during

the Civil War (Lincoln's second election), so it would have to be something pretty catastrophic.

:shrug:

[onenote]

15. once again, I'm compelled to repeat my challenge

I pledge to donate $100 to DU if any attempt is made to postpone or cancel this November's elections. Still waiting for anyone who thinks that it could happen to pledge to donate a similar amount if they are right.

onenote