John Perry Barlow writes about the absurdity of even considering suspending elections if there's a terrorist attack:
Even during the Civil War and both World Wars, presidential elections were held on schedule. I can imagine no terrorist attack that would justify postponing them now, unless, of course, the administration were seeking a reason to do it anyway. Even if Al-Qaeda were to pop off a tactical nuke on Wall Street November 1, reducing me and lower Manhattan to our elemental constituents, I would want the election to proceed on schedule. I vote absentee anyway.
I share JP's suspicions, of course, but I don't think it's necessarily evil to think through unpleasant election day scenarios. E.g., imagine Florida's ballots matter to the outcome. What would we say to the, let's say, 10,000 residents of Broward Country who were unwilling to walk through sarin to get to their polling place? Tough nougies and W wins Florida again? Or: We don't want you disenfranchised by terrorism, so you can vote tomorrow? I don't know the answer to that question, but it's one we ought to consider.
(There's more in the post than this point, including why Osama is voting Republican and how truly awful the USA PATRIOT Act is.)
Frank Paynter puts beautifully the case for asking for UN supervision of our elections.
I respect the impulse, but I don't think UN supervision would work: The country's too big and if there were actual discrepancies, I don't think we'd be willing to give the decision over to the UN. (Headline: "Federal Troops Advance on UN in Battle of Broward Country").
Well, Frank, I'm arguing against it but not from pride or fear. Rather, I think if it were actually to happen, it would make more problems than it solved. The nasty arguments we'd have with one another about how to count the votes and whether there was cheating we would now have with a third party. It wouldn't solve the problem, only exacerbate it. IMO.
But, again, I share your anxiety and I really liked your post.
Posted by David Weinberger on July 14, 2004 10:34 AM | Permalink to Comment
I believe that a willingness to permit outside monitoring of our electoral process is a good first step. I think anybody who argues against it is likely to be arguing from one of two positions... overweening pride, or raw guilt with something to hide. The executive branch has demonstrated their willingness to use dishonesty to extend their power, so requesting an outside mediation of our process is reasonable. By surfacing it as a possibility I hope to demonstrate that there are many of us with nothing to hide and who are willing to stand as equals with people from other countries. I intend to send the letter with as many signatures as I can gather, and when I am told that the letter must come from a government, I intend to forward it to state and federal authorities who might be expected to have an interest in fair and open elections. Let me know if you'd like to add your name to the letter.
Frank
Posted by Frank Paynter on July 13, 2004 11:06 PM | Permalink to Comment