Boris Beizer wrote:

Delayed Election:

There is an article in the July 19th edition of Newsweek relating to
Ridge's examination of what needs to be done in order to delay the
November election -- putatively in case of a terrorist attack at election
time.

To delay the election would be the greatest terrorist attack of all. There
can be no circumstances, short of the assasination of all the candidates
that would warrant delaying the election -- what is it now? First they
steal the election and now they want to make that permanent?

First....an "assasination of all the candidates" would *not* be grounds
for delaying an election. The populace does *not* elect the President and
Vice President. The state-appointed electors do, when they convene as the
Electoral College. These electors are not even constitutionally required
to select the candidate that their own state's population selected. They
can select *anyone* they wish.

How was the 2000 election "stolen"? Please do not give the old, lame
argument about the popular vote; as that does not determine the outcome
of the Presidential and Vice Presidential elections. The 2000 election was
not the only time that the winner of the popular vote, failed to win the
electoral vote. It has happened before, most notably in the election
of Rutherford Hayes, I believe. (where even "wheeling and dealing" was done,
to get state electors to change their selections...).

The U.S. Constitution was followed, and adhered to, in the 2000 election.

Now, if you *really* want to clean up the process....then help repeal the
17th Amendment!

)






--
--

Greg Heilers
Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 9.1