Going over the various arguments
against postponing or delaying the election, or even individual polling stations, I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong.
I still don't think the notion of a delay in itself is heretical - the product of coming from a political culture largely without fixed election dates, I suppose. While I've always favoured them as a means of removing possible abuse of custom from the incumbent in a Westminster-derived parliamentary tradition, I didn't quite realize how important many feel it is for election dates to be absolutely set in stone. I also think calling this evidence of incipient totalitarianism is still slightly overblown - but only slightly. Acknowledging the possibility of having to postpone even a single poll is, after a fashion, negotiating with the terrorists; it's challenging them to assert what power they can with the promise that it'll have an effect. That can't be allowed, under any circumstance. It would show far more strength and resolve to promise an unchanged election procedure (with, of course, beefed-up security) no matter what.
(Via Right Thinking