Why do recall oponents are for delaying the vote?

[Gem]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned in another thread before, but I'm curious as to why the recall opposition is for delayings the vote. I mean, the recall is still going to happen anyway.

What's the logic behind it?

Thanks

Gem

[peptoabysmal]

It will place the recall election nearer the Democratic primary election, when there will likely be more Democrats at the polls.

[Brown]

It gives Davis a chance to improve his image (assuming that such a thing is possible).

[Brown]

Actually, the reason for the delay has some practical basis. Some of the voting machines were supposed to be replaced with more reliable voting systems. However, the replacement has not yet been made.

The idea is to try to solve the problem before the election, rather than have the election under questionable circumstances and argue endlessly about the election's validity.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Brown
It gives Davis a chance to improve his image (assuming that such a thing is possible).

OMG!!!!!!!


:roll:

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Brown
Actually, the reason for the delay has some practical basis. Some of the voting machines were supposed to be replaced with more reliable voting systems. However, the replacement has not yet been made.

The idea is to try to solve the problem before the election, rather than have the election under questionable circumstances and argue endlessly about the election's validity.

How did they put that? Oh yeah "disenfranchised voters". LOL
Keep in mind this court has had more decisions overturned than any other circuit court and has provided lots of talk show fodder for things like trying to take the words "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and legalize marijuana.

[Brown]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Keep in mind this court has had more decisions overturned than any other circuit court and has provided lots of talk show fodder for things like trying to take the words "under God" out of the pledge of allegiance and legalize marijuana. I understand that people want to blame the Ninth Circuit. Come want to blame the ACLU. Some want to blame the Democrats. Some want to blame Al Gore.

Me, I place the blame squarely at the feet of the Supreme Court. If you read my other posts on this topic, you'll see that I think that what the Supreme Court did for Bush set a terrible precedent. I don't like what the Ninth Circuit is doing, but I think you have to recognize that the Ninth Circuit is following (and explicitly relying upon) what the Supreme Court did.

[Tricky]

My understanding is not that it gives Davis a chance to improve his image so much, as that it lets the cold eye of public scrutiny fall on the other candidates for a longer time. Most people know that the "honeymoon" period between when a candidate bursts on the scene and the time when we become disillusioned with him/her is fairly short. By giving the populace time to see the warts on all the contenders, it increases the chance that the voters will say "it really won't make any difference". Davis doesn't get more attractive, but the competition gets less attractive.

That is the reason that we haven't elected a former member of congress to the presidency Lyndon Johnson (and he was the incumbent at the time.) They have too much history that can be used against them. The four most recently elected presidents were former governers, which makes them "knowledgable about politics", yet uncertain regarding their positions on national issues.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Brown
I understand that people want to blame the Ninth Circuit. Come want to blame the ACLU. Some want to blame the Democrats. Some want to blame Al Gore.

Me, I place the blame squarely at the feet of the Supreme Court. If you read my other posts on this topic, you'll see that I think that what the Supreme Court did for Bush set a terrible precedent. I don't like what the Ninth Circuit is doing, but I think you have to recognize that the Ninth Circuit is following (and explicitly relying upon) what the Supreme Court did.

No what the Ninth Circuit does is set a new precedent. The Supreme court acted after an election. The precedent this would set is before and election if voters might be disenfranchised then we should delay the election.

Think about 2004. What will happened if in Oct. the candidate who is behind in the polls finds a county somewhere in the country with sub-standard voting equipment. No election until 2005?