I cannot imagine anything that would cause a national election to be thrown without mutual agreement at the time that a postponement was in order. It would take an event that dwarfed 9/11 and if such a thing took place we'd have much bigger problems than keeping to the traditional date.

I cannot imagine anything that would cause a national election to be thrown without mutual agreement at the time that a postponement was in order.

Don't kid yourself.

Look, if, on election day, millions of Americans have been prevented from voting but Kerry is the electoral college winner based upon the results of voting that day, do you really imagine that the Democrats are going to "mutually agree" to some new voting scheme that might upset the victory they already have in their hand?

And the reverse is true, too. Would Bush agree to have a second or third day of voting, when he won, as it might stand, on the first day of voting?

I wouldn't.

Would you?

The trouble is, if we don't have a detailed, specific system in place before election day, we can't just wing it on the day and come to a "mutually agreeable solution."

Someone will be ahead on that day, and he'll know he's ahead, and that someone will not be particularly interested in having a second day of voting.

Here's the Constitutional passage that, ostensibly, at least, will govern the outcome. I say "ostensibly," because there are enough or almost enough preening pricks on the Supreme Court to make it doubtful whether the actual text of the Constitution will be decisive. Below, I've edited heavily for brevity.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: ...
...

"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

First, notice what isn't there: There's no mention of a popular vote whatsoever; as nearly as I can tell, a State Legislature could make a law saying that they themselves will choose the electors with a dowsing rod. That's how stupidly beside the point all the talk for the last four years of Gore's having won a national majority of the popular vote is. It's only by the good graces of any given State Legislature that the popular vote of the given state is even taken. "National majority of the popular vote"? What f>cking popular vote are they talking about?

But to keep to the issue at hand, "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States." As it happens, the manner of choosing in all 50 states is a state-wide popular vote, but it's apparently a matter of settled federal law that the "Time of chusing" is a particular day in November. If there's any question of a delay, it'll surely wind up in front of the Supreme Court again and what I think we have to hope is that there will be five or more hard-@sses with enough nerve to cite the law and say "Congress has chosen the 'Time of chusing' the electors, that date has come and gone, and there's the end of it." In an emergency, a firm hand in support of a decent, stable order is the better part of justice.

Since the State Legislatures determine the manner of choosing the electors, it's possible that there's precedent of giving them wide latitude in establishing laws governing emergencies during elections. There again, we have to hope we can once again find five or more hard-@sses on the Court to just read the state laws with an eye to a firm settlement, apply the laws firmly and without any respect, and be done.

But I think it's useful to go back to my first point, which is that the fat sacred cow, the popular vote, isn't to be found at all in the Constitutional clauses governing the election of the President. And like the Constitutional writers, I would avoid elevating any niceties about the popular vote over the selection of a good President and the firm imposition of an orderly succession.

Actually, there is a remedy in constitutional law dealing with the dates the electoral college is required to carry out their responsibilities. check out this link. If an election is not held in a particular state, it is up to that states various laws in place at that time to determine the process. The way I understand it also requires that if the states electoral college members cannot/willnot complete their obligations, then that state's electoral votes will be deducted from the total electoral votes and a new calculation used to determine the number of electoral votes needed to win the election.

Do a google and you'll come up with some interesting facts and laws that deal precisely with this issue.

After reading that link again, it states:

TITLE 3 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 2.

Sec. 2. - Failure to make choice on prescribed day

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

I guess there has to be an election held... I wonder if state laws are in place to deal with the possibility that an election cannot be held? An interesting question, to be sure.

"Whenever any State has held an election": Well, yes, there has to be an election, i.e. a choosing, but that's not the same as a popular vote. Choosing by ouija board would be election by ouija board.

I'm only insisting on this point (and giving the ridiculous example of the ouija board) in order to put the whole holy matter of the popular headcount in perspective. As far as I know, the State Legislatures have all passed written laws to the effect that the electors will be chosen by a popular vote of some sort, so in that sense, it's a moot point. But I'm saying that if push comes to shove, it was a lot more important in the minds of the Framers, and it's a lot more important in my mind, that a capable successor be chosen and an orderly succession be maintained than that it be done by an exquisitely inclusive popular vote.

A good President who comes to office through some irregularity following on a terrorist catastrophe is more to be honored than a bad one who comes to office with all the right headcounts.

Ace:

You hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. That is EXACTLY what the liberals will do: they will try whatever they think will favor them, and the heck with everything else.

Gentlemen: Ironically, the problem of whether (and if so, how) to adjust our presidential election in the event of 'disturbances' seems similar to the problem of liberal judges who re-interpret the Constitution to conform with their social views--and will likely have the same disastrous effect.

Both problems are of the 'slippery slope' or incremental nature: If the Constitution is *not* the supreme law of the land, it can be violated by whoever has the cojones to do so. If that's allowed, where does it stop? As several commenters have noted, the party who lost the 'regular' election will undoubtedly claim that some exigency somewhere in the country was serious enough to trigger the 'no-fair, re-do' provision. From there we're only a blink away from total chaos, as anarchists set off bombs simply to throw our election process into disarray.

Thus the answer to the 'when to postpone' question *must be*: "under no circumstances." If this were to result in a president being elected by even a tiny percentage of the electorate, so be it. To decide otherwise would be to *invite* chaos.

Pssst... Ace - small correction.

The election was postponed on 9/11 *2001*, not 2000.

TK
NYC

Shit . . . I mean damn . . . I mean for f**kin crying out loud! One more thing to worry about. Glad you've raised the point though. You all can take care of it. I'm going surfing, see you in the water.

A whole lot of these potential
problems would simply not arise
at all, if we switched to voting
by mail. Oregon already votes 100%
by mail, and Washington [where I live]
and California are about 50%.
So it's not a radical or untested idea.

Also eliminates idiotic complaints
about racial profiling or "intimidation" --
how can you be intimidated by receiving and
mailing a letter? -- and eliminates
most errors, because you have plenty of
time to think, read, discuss, and mark
carefully.