Federal Election Standards?

Posted by rainman0720 3 months, 3 weeks ago to Politics
9 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

After a discussion with my wife this morning concerning the total CF in Iowa (way to go, Dems!), I pretty much convinced her of something. I’d like to know what others think about my ideas concerning standardization of rules for national elections.

For all non-national elections (that is, for all elections where the winners serve at the state or local level), the towns, cities, counties, and states can do whatever they want. They can draw straws, they can play rock/paper/scissors, they can play musical chairs. I don’t care; how the City/County Council in Butte, Montana or Pine Bluff, Arkansas does its job doesn’t affect me.

But elections that result in someone going to the House or Senate from Montana and Arkansas do affect me, as they can (and too often do) pass laws that affect the entire country. Caucuses (like Iowa and Nevada have) and primaries (like pretty much everyone else has) that nominate presidential candidates affect me, as they help determine who I will be able to vote for in November every four years. And people voting in a Presidential election in the other 49 states damn sure affect me, since the winner of this contest will become President of the United States.

As much as I hate to admit it, this is one instance where I think the federal government should have the authoritah to step in and make rules for federal elections (“federal election” being defined as an election where the elected official has the power to affect every resident of not only that state, but the other 49 states on a national level). The way I vote for my Senator or my Representative in Indiana should be the same way as someone in any other state votes for his/her Representative or Senator. And the way I cast my vote for President in Indiana should be identical to how every single person in the other 49 states casts his or her individual vote for President.

As for what I think this election standard should look like, there are probably a number of valid options. However, I positively, absolutely do NOT think they should be 100% reliant on technology (see: Iowa 2020). I’ve been a programmer for almost 44 years (the last 15+ in a company with way over-the-top security), and honestly, I don’t trust that we can make that technology secure enough to use it for the election of ANYONE.

Anyway, what do you think?

Should the federal government be allowed to define rules for national elections? If so, what kind of pitfalls and problems do you see?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by lrshultis 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    So, take away another state right and maybe take away the states right to the electoral college just as the removal of state rights to pick their senators through the legislators and given to popular vote. It won't be long before their will be no need for separate states for a federal government.
    You would have no better a number of candidates to vote for with the federal government butting in on how states regulate their elections.
    Your vote, while it makes you feel good, has only, say, one chance in 120,000,000 to be of any influence on who is elected. How states screw up their politics and elections makes little difference for your vote. If an idiot is running, don't vote for it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Orwellian 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    I like the concept of uniformity in elections in order to slow down the corrupt practices. I may hate Large government ,but I hate fraud more and we need to stop the fraud as much as possible. It's not about taking away rights it's about stopping corruption.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    We should go back to the old way...
    Every 100 Homes pick 1 rep.
    That rep meets with the 100 first level reps closest to them, and among them, pick 1 rep.

    They keep doing this. Personally picking people they have met. (BTW, this is kinda what the caucus was supposed to be about, but it got hacked up)

    But No. I don't see a federal government role here.

    I now believe that ALL of our laws are used to subvert the very ideals of the law to begin with. NVRA (Motor Voter was just to make it easier for citizens to be registered to vote. But here in FL, people have had their parties changed, and lost the ability to participate in their primaries)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 3 months, 3 weeks ago
    What should be remembered is that this isn't a national election. These are party processes used to determine who their candidate for the General election is going to be. As such, they get to define the rules and mandating standards IMO would be an infringement on their First Amendment right of Association.

    Yes - the rules the Democrats use are intentionally corrupt. They designed it that way with their inclusion of "super" delegates and this was on full display in the 2016 primaries when Bernie Sanders was suddenly surpassed by Hillary Clinton and ALL due to the votes of the "super" delegates. To me, this is a blatant illustration of the inherent corruption in the Democratic Party and their absolute disdain for even their own voters - let alone the American populace. That they go on and on about how they are the "party of the people" is a total farce - they are megalomaniacs bent on power.

    I say let them expose themselves and their corruption. Let them design and implement their own demise, or in other words - they've made the rope and constructed the gallows, let them hang themselves with it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo