Nothing in this article scares me. It sounds like they were running what-if scenarios. For instance, what if there was a radiological terrorist attack on election day that took out all of NYC? Would voting be postponed? Extended? I don't know, but it sounds like they were asking the question of how to respond. Since nothing happened, it doesn't matter.
I see this situation as part of the challenge of asymmetrical warfare threats. In the good old Cold War days, this scenario would not have come up, because the basic postulation was that any attack by the USSR would leave both sides dead and voting wouldn't matter. Anyone know how voting was dealt with in battleground states during the Civil War? On 6/14/06, Dana wrote: > > Tom Ridge the color-coded man. > > > http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-12-postpone-elections_x.htm > > -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209350 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
