Has anyone contemplated what will happen in 2000 when it is time to elect a new president? Primaries may be a low priority for most people with all of the other problems but could we tabulate election results in 2000 without computers? Could we even organize a national election? If a national state of emergency (or martial law) was declared, would we even have elections?

So if Clinton is still in office on 1/1/2000, how long could he stay there under a state of emergency and a doubtful ability to stage national elections? Kind of scary, don't you think?

-- Dave Vettius (vvboy@arkansas.net), August 30, 1998

Answers

Elections were held in this country long before we had computers to tabulate the results. That is one of the reasons why the inauguration is 2 months after the election, lots of time to count the votes.

IMHO Clinton is a wounded duck who does not have enough power to crown himself king without the support of Congress. Unless the Demoncrats win a huge majority in November, I doubt that he could pull off such a power grab without inciting Civil War II.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 30, 1998.

Respectfully, this is not an adequate answer. They also use to switch the trains manually but that can't be done anymore. Inaugurations were held in April, not February up until the 1930's. Do you really think that we have the materials on hand to conduct a fair and HONEST election on paper in 2000. And could the results be tabulated and brought together without any major form of transportation or communication in six months? Would you be confident that the results ere fair and accurate?

Please don't take this state of national emergency question lightly. Spend some time reading Executive Orders and realize that there are a lot of things kept in that dark closet.

-- Dave Vettius (vvboy@arkansas.net), August 31, 1998.

Dave

Fair enough, what is your opinion BTW? Criticism is easy, accurately prognosticating the future is not.

It is my understanding that the President can declare a national state of emergency and defer debate by Congress for 6 months by invoking the war powers act, however I am not a constitutional attorney, and I do not play one on TV.

I do stand by my assertion that Clinton no longer has the political clout (if indeed he ever did) to pull off King for a day without widespread congressional approval. If you refer to some of my other posts on this forum you will see that I am no fan of coercion by force, and I doubt that Clinton could hold on indefinitely to the Presidency without the consent of the American people. Sadly, the American people are willing to put up Clinton wiping his butt with the Constitution on a regular basis, to date Clinton has: (from the Libertarian Party Press Release)

Violated the First Amendment by supporting censorship of the Internet and by demanding a ban on commercial advertising by cigarette companies

Violated the Second Amendment by signing the Brady Bill and by arbitrarily banning so-called "assault weapons."

Violated the Fourth Amendment by restricting the right of Americans to employ encryption technology to prevent government spying on electronic communications and by supporting legislation that will mandate national ID cards with biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints.

Violated the Fifth Amendment by supporting and expanding the power of the federal government to seize private property without compensation under asset forfeiture laws and by signing "anti-terrorism" legislation that sharply curtailed the right of habeas corpus.

Violated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments -- which reserve all power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and to the people -- by attempting to put America's health care industry under federal control AND BY NUMEROUS OTHER EXECUTIVE ACTIONS AND DECREES.(emphasis mine)

In conclusion, I dont see America becoming a banana republic ruled by King Clinton because I dont want to believe that We the People would put up with a huge all encompassing power play, despite much evidence to the contrary. Does that make me an optimist or a denial-head? That I will leave for others to decide.

PS stop by and visit the ONE party (third largest) that stands by the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights at:

http://www.lp.org/

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 31, 1998.

Uncle Deedah,

I agree with you that Clinton has no support and that no one is going to really rally around him. Who is going to believe what he says anyway? I am disturbed by the Republicans attitude at the moment. It seems they would rather left Clinton swing in the breeze for the next two years rather than give Gore the chance to run as an incumbent in 2000. The point I was trying to make was how bad this could backfire on them.

I dislike both major parties. I voted Libertarian in the last election. My concern is if the Y2K problem manifests at even a moderate level, our ability to elect a new leader will be seriously impaired. How do we have primaries? How does a canidate get momentum if there is not widespread media attention? My point is that besides all of the very serious issues of providing basic needs, we will be severly hampered in getting the kind of leadership that we really need. No primaries may throw us back to the days of the canidate being picked by party "bosses". Of course this all assumes that right now the people are electing the leaders we really want, which I have serious doubts about.

I would at least like to know that I could vote against all of the politicians who refused to take a chance a try to lead our country as we approach this critical time. The next writer who writes a "Profiles of Courage" will be an even slimmer volume.

Dave

-- Dave Vettius (vvboy@arkansas.net), August 31, 1998.

Dave

I too voted Libertarian, and when criticized for wasting my vote my response was that a vote is only wasted when cast for the lesser of two evils, rather than cast for the candidate championing policies with which you agree.

The Repulsicans are waiting until after the November elections before lambasting Clinton, they can read the polls regarding Clintons popularity. They wish to avoid appearing partisan until the votes are in, as Bill is hurting himself and his party just fine on his own.

As to your other points, yes the ability to elect anyone to any office will be seriously hampered, depending on the severity of the problems we encounter, and I imagine that a candidate will gather momentum by lying to a gullible public, much as is done today.

Will holding an election be do-able? It wont be easy but I think so, we managed to hold one during the Civil War, and when votes were collected by horseback. With pervasive breakdowns in the economy there will be plenty of idle people to help with vote counting, and other electoral duties. If the situation decays to the point of a return to the dark ages, who is president will be a moot point anyway, raw survival will be job #1 for most people.

Do we get the leaders who actually gather the most votes? Jeez I sure hope so. If some mysterious cabal decided that Clinton was the best choice to implement their secret agenda, they are bigger fools than those few of us who actually go out and vote.

Your point about lack of courageous leadership is well taken, perhaps a tome entitled Profiles of Denial, Deceit, and Debauchery?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 31, 1998.

>"If some mysterious cabal decided that Clinton was the best choice to implement their secret agenda, they are bigger fools than those few of us who actually go out and vote."

They won't, and they aren't. Politics is a puppet-show. Those who have the gold, make the rules. They also have us dazzled with Clinton's dirty laundry while they continue to consolidate their financial grab of the last two decades with a political power-grab. So Clinton's antics serve their purposes admirably. Wait and see.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), August 31, 1998.

But remember too that the census (and ballots) was the original driving force in the 1890's to start the whole computer process ... You can't get it done now without them .. without power ... without control and phones.

National emergency? Very likely, I hope for only a few days - a few a few weeks -- a few months?

But remember too: Al Gore can only run as the "high techy" "bridge to the 21st century .... blah, blah, blah candidate. He has nothing else, and no other national reputation. (other than a cheater and liar and liberal.....)

So he has had 8 years to get the federal government ready for this? And what has he done? How well have they performed?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 31, 1998.

Has anyone on this forum readVOTESCAM,The Stealing of America byCollier brothers, James and Kenneth? It documents the evidence of how our votes are manipulated by the computer in national elections. I say, back to thepaper ballot now!

-- Betty Arnspiger (Barn266@aol.com), September 01, 1998.