I get it now. The Gulch was right, I was wrong.

Posted by $ rainman0720 8 months ago to Politics
43 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

In numerous posts here in The Gulch, I've been a staunch advocate of Federal standards for Federal elections.

I don't care if local officials are elected through punch card ballots and their hanging chads, or by Dominion systems, by picking a number between 1 and 1000, or playing Rock/Paper/Scissors. You can vote for those people any way you want, since you're the only ones who will have to pay the consequences of a bad decision.

I still firmly believe that if the elected position (e.g., President, Vice President, Senator, Representative) has the ability to screw up the lives of every single person in this country, then there should be absolutely consistency (if not uniformity) in how that person gets elected.

But while I believe the theory of the idea is 100% sound, The Wicked Witch of the West and HR1 have shown me that the reality of the idea is as unsound as it gets.

Discounting the legal aspects of States running elections any way they want, Pelosi has made me understand why Federal control of elections is such a bad idea.

So to everyone in The Gulch who took (and take) the other side of this argument, I'll concede the point. You were and are right. I understand the reality now.

When someone in power writes something as obscene as this in a blatant attempt at cementing that power for however long this country has to live (and I fear that's not very much longer), it perfectly illustrates the need to keep control of elections in the hands of the states.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by mccannon01 8 months ago
    I know what you mean, rainman0720. Procedural uniformity through standardization has a great sound until the bad guys are in charge of setting the standards.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 months ago
      And, unfortunately, who gets defined as "bad guys" is based solely on which side of the fence you're sitting on. From the left's perspective, we really are a threat to the country--or at least, to the country they're trying to create which makes us the bad guys.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by VetteGuy 8 months ago
    The Gulch is good for that, and usually with respectful comments that are uncommon these days. I have been 'recalibrated' a few times in my time here, frequently just by lurking.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 8 months ago
    First, Congratulations. You used your Free Speech to engage in conversation.

    You were NOT shut down, and through that conversation, you MIND was changed.

    Unfortunately, 1/2 of the population of this country is SO BRAINWASHED, that the very thought of this process is being BANNED throughout the country, and in the press.

    I used to be against a Federal ID. Unfortunately, I believe we need one for voting. I own a house in 2 states.
    I could easily register to vote in both. I could, in fact, vote in both. When does it cross the line? What if I only vote for the president in one state?

    But our problems are not our citizens. They are the ruling class. Their refusal to abide by the constitution, and our inability to put them in front of a firing squad. Bring back the firing squad for elected officials, and I bet things start to change after about the 5th or 6th public demonstration that we are serious, and will continue until the corruption ends!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rhfinle 7 months, 4 weeks ago
      A Federal ID is not necessary as long as the states have the power and the will to investigate each other's voter registrations and search for duplicates. There should be simply a federal offense with a 20-year prison sentence for anyone found to be registered and voting in more than one state, or as more than one person, or falsifying voter information in order to vote multiple times.
      As far as the 50%, take heart. Almost all Americans are exposed to 13 or 14 years of Liberal brainwashing by the time they are 18, but only half of them believe it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CaptainKirk 7 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yeah, and technically "law enforcement" isn't necessary either...

        I don't disagree that "washing" the voter rolls through the ERIC system (already exists) is a great way.

        But we have an issue. SOME states are NOT ALLOWED to validate citizenship! And most states DO NOT.

        So, an 11th grader in FL High School gets a form, fills it out BEFORE they are 18. Signs it saying they are a citizen.
        The teacher is effectively authenticating the ID, for which none is provided. If they are illegal, they are told ahead of time, nothing can happen, they are not 18!

        Then, when they turn 18, the state mails them an ID with their signature. And if they ONLY vote by mail, they NEVER have to produce ID or proof of anything.
        If you get the raw data, these are "PRE" voters (status), vs. ACT (active), and I believe INA (Inactive).

        There are so many loop holes. We find people with 4-5 middle names (our systems are just not designed for it), so they change the middle name/initial, or the ordering of the middle names [BTW, islands use multiple middle names to prevent accidental inbreeding]...

        The ultimate challenge is that US Citizenship should be required. And THAT, I believe is the FEDERAL governments job to track. While it doesn't have to be an ID, it must be an identifier (a new PUBLIC SSN, concept, versus the PRIVATE one that you would use to access things, and a changeable PIN for authentication outside of the federal system).

        But if there is ONE central agency that KNOWS if you are a citizen, dead or alive. It can at the least "authenticate" the one state you should be voting in.
        Although, I have to question if I own land, and pay taxes in 2 states... Shouldn't that give me a right to vote in those states? [And would this mean that professional atheletes who pay taxes in most of the states they play games in... would be able to vote there too?]

        It gets interesting...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Ben_C 8 months ago
    Yes, this is a non - judgement zone. This is my go to place to learn what is really happening in this country. I too have little use for the Federal government other than the military and to a degree the Interstate Highway system. I too agree that the end is near and it may take a "miracle" to change the trajectory avoiding an armed conflict.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 8 months ago
    Information is NOT Knowledge! Where you get your information from and how you choose to accept it, research it and believe or disbelieve it is what makes for knowledge. That old adage, "We are here from the Government and here to help" is the biggest bullshit lie that far too many of us are willing to accept. Elected officials have just one ever present duty and it encompasses 95% of their entire being, get reelected at whatever the cost.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 months ago
    It's not exactly that the states can do what ever they want, they have their own constitutions and that constitution must abide by the US Constitution...so if any more conformity was desired between the states, we could Amend the constitution in the proper way via majority of the states ratifying that amendment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 8 months ago
      Other than they completely ignored the actual uniformity directly specified in the constitution, and have been doing so for a long time.

      To wit regarding POTUS:
      "The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

      One day to choose electors, the same across the country.
      Early voting stands opposite this. Extended voting stands opposite this. Arguably so does mail-in. Both of which they've tried to work around by not "counting" them until election day. Meaning they know there is a constitutional mandate that there is one day allocated to choosing electors.

      And to your point about modifying the constitution via proper amendment, that is how we've done it in the past. In 1965 the federal congress tried to set a lower age criteria (18) across the board, but found they could only do that for federal elections. That was the result of a (divided) SCOTUS ruling.

      In Oregon v. Mitchell the court upheld that the necessary and proper clause allows the legislature to set qualifications for federal elections, and federal elections only. Rather than having to maintain separate sets of rolls, an amendment was proposed and ratified fixing the age of adulthood for voting at 18. For citizens.

      One thing is repeated across all references to voter qualification and apportionment: citizenship. Under the Necessary and Proper clause, Congress could mandate an ID. Why? Because the Constitution is explicit that only citizens are counted for apportionment and only citizens can vote. Thus, for federal elections, the Congress could enact law to mandate citizens, and only citizens, of the United States vote in federal elections.

      But there is a tricky bit there. You see, in the aforementioned SCOTUS decision they upheld a Congressional ban on a state prohibiting a citizen from voting in their state if they can't prove residency. They did so under the notion that to do that in a federal election would be to infringe on your right to freely move about. No kidding:

      "There is adequate constitutional basis for the residency provisions of the Act in §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as there is ample justification for the congressional findings that durational residence requirements abridge the right of free interstate migration -and that such requirements are not reasonably related to any compelling state interests."

      4. The.residency provisions of the Act are constitutional because Congress, while it does not have general authority to establish qualifications for voting in congressional or presidential elections, does have the power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to' protect the privileges of United States citizenship, including the freedom to travel and to change one's residence."

      Now I'd argue that today this does not hold true. Clearly today we can see that states have a compelling interest in only their citizens voting for their state officials at the federal level. In 1970 when this decision was handed down, the idea that people could vote in other states than where they live in enough numbers to make a difference was probably laughable.

      Today, with our current capabilities this is not the case. That said, it is stunning to think they concluded that a state has no compelling interest in ensuring that only resident citizens of the state get to vote on who represents the state.

      Where the Congress could improve things here (but clearly would not do so) is to establish a system for validating 1) Only citizens are voting in federal elections and 2) that said citizen is voting in only one jurisdiction for federal offices. This would be well within the N&P clause as well as in line with the above SCOTUS decision. Though that decision should be revisited and put into the dustbin.

      At a minimum, the federal government, it could be argued, has a compelling interest in each state's offices only being voted on by residents of that state. Even if somehow the states do not.

      Faced with having to maintain two sets of rolls, states may well extend their own ID requirement, implement one. In the end, however, the constitution is quite clear that citizens are the only ones considered in apportionment and have the privilege of voting (one of the things that case got right: voting is a privilege); as such mandating photo ID confirming citizenship as well as proper voting jurisdiction would fall under the N&P clauses.

      Similarly, and thinking a bit further on it, state ID requirements are not actually an additional requirement being established, merely a means to validate the criteria (legal adult citizen who has not had eligibility lawfully stripped) have been met. Perhaps that is an approach proponents should focus on more - that the ID is to validate an existing constitutional requirement. It would have no effect the ideologues, but could be helpful for developing that understand in others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by craigerb 8 months ago
        "the constitution is quite clear that citizens are the only ones considered in apportionment"
        Where is this in the Constitution?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 7 months, 4 weeks ago
          This is the classic question of national jurisdiction which is so misunderstood by many regarding the 13th and 14th Amendments. A nation only has original jurisdiction over its own citizens. It may have (secondary) jurisdiction over visitors such as tourists or those with work permits, but those jurisdictional questions are a matter of treaty - not any original claim either by the individual to such a State or by the State over such an individual just because the individual is found on lands belonging to the State. Thus a person's nationality properly defines their allegiance as well as the original national jurisdiction under which they can not only be prosecuted for wrongdoing, but be afforded the privileges of citizenship.

          When the Fourteenth Amendment made citizens out of the former slaves following the Civil War, note the language which was used to do so granted citizenship to those who had no national allegiance but lived within the boundaries of the United States. Thus it did NOT apply to foreigners living in the United States. It did not apply to Mexicans. It did not apply to the Chinese either. Why? Because they had a nationality - a foreign allegiance - even if they had set it aside to come to the United States. Only the former slaves - who had not been recognized as citizens of any other nation - properly qualified. Of the Amendments to the Constitution, the Thirteenth was one of the few which was an administrative measure and which is effectively dead. (The Eighteenth was rescinded by the Twenty-First.)

          Note: The Supreme Court rulings which have created "anchor babies" are based on the mistaken notion that anyone born on US soil is entitled to citizenship. This is a blatantly false notion which belies every notion of nationality in the history of the world. Nationality has always been an inherited trait irrespective of the place of birth. One of the best things we could do for our national sovereignty is to correct this egregious judicial ruling by Legislative fiat - over the which the Legislature is "king" by virtue of explicit grant of power in the Constitution.

          It should also be noted that prior to blacks and women gaining the right to vote, only males of voting age were considered true citizens and only males of voting age were considered for apportionment in the House of Representatives. Historical precedent here is crystal clear. Even though the Census counted everyone, their nationality and sex was also listed and if one was not an American either by birth or by naturalization, they were not counted towards representation in the House.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by craigerb 7 months, 4 weeks ago
            So it's not in the Constitution, but only in "historical precedent". That historical precedent has been broken by SCOTUS, which did not allow the citizenship question in the census.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 7 months, 4 weeks ago
              Much of what we have in the Constitution was based on four centuries of British Common Law. The Constitution was written with those precedents in mind. And as you point out, that is why having Constitutional scholars as Justices is so important because, yes, SCOTUS did ignore not only historical precedent but a plain reading of the Constitution when they institutionalized anchor babies (which exist in no other country on earth btw) and when they blocked the Census from including a question on Citizenship. By blocking that question, they inherently violated the very sovereignty and integrity of our elections by allowing non-citizens to vote.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ nickursis 8 months ago
      So, the states DID do "whatever they want" and they stole 2020. That did not go well. look beyond the simple answer, this has been an engineered effort over the last 80 years, using racial divides and emotional manipulation to culminate in covid. A criminal is a criminal, whether at state level or Fed, and we are infested with them. The rational approach does not work with these creatures. Another revolution is brewing fast.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ pixelate 8 months ago
        Dare I say it? Day of the Rope. Talk, talk, talk, blog, post, harumph... and nothing changes. My property taxes go up 40% in one year and I just pay it. The Navarro Report shows the clear fraud in the US Presidential election. Nothing changes; "cleanest elections in history" we are told. Conservatives, Libertarians, Capitalists are Cancelled from their media platforms. Silence. Things are going to get a hell of a lot worse and when individual breaking points are reached, then we will see the results of cold, calculated retribution in context of taking down the criminal creatures.

        Dare I say it? You open the newspaper one morning and see a splash photo -- one of these creatures is hanging, naked, from a rope just outside the state house (you pick the house). No note, no manifesto. None are necessary. Within days, this action is repeated across the country, then migrates to Europe and then the World.

        Day of the Rope. Things just need to get worse. And they will.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ nickursis 8 months ago
          Yes. although we have some weapons in our locker. I had to (not of my own volition, my mother in laws birthday) schedule a flight to New York. There were deals for American and Delta but they are now verboten for their BS racist policies and attempt to support voter fraud. So, I went back to United and found a decent price, and was able to pay the ferryman to get some bigger seats. The American flights same day were half empty, as was Delta. United was full. That tells me the silent majority is indeed fighting back, and using their money as a weapon. We must use anything we can to show our anger at these criminals and their attempts to secure the coup.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 7 months, 4 weeks ago
          Have you read Unintended Consequences by John Ross? It's fictional account of one man being pushed to his "Day of the Rope."
          (It's available online as a free e-book now. Hard copies are rare and expensive - like early printings of Rand's fiction.)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ pixelate 7 months, 4 weeks ago
            Thanks FFA. I just downloaded the PDF of the book and read the Intro ...

            " . . . The boiling, shimmering image in the glasses gave a surrealistic appearance to the approaching choppers, but Henry could make them out well enough. Three of them. Bell turbine model, Jet Ranger or its descendant. A door gunner with a belt-fed machine gun poking out of the right side of each one. Possibly the Belgian MAG-58, but more likely M60s, he thought with derision. They should have brought armored Apaches carrying napalm, he thought. Or nukes. A grin split his face. Oh, those poor bastards."

            Damn. I am hooked.

            "Day of the Rope" is a recent book written by Devon Stack (online known as Black Pilled). It's a short book, a little over 100 pages, more to follow. The SPLC and ADL have deemed it pure hate. Good on them.

            I finally got around to reading "Molon Labe" just last year. Creative solutions to truly systemic problems; solved, one beautifully engineered disappearance at a time.

            I bought some acreage in Wyoming with thoughts of relocating. Backup plan. However, I don't want to move, and then be forced to keep on moving. Creative solutions to systemic problems. It's a good time to be an engineer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by freedomforall 7 months, 4 weeks ago
              I think you'll enjoy it, especially if you are interested in the "gun culture" and enjoy truly heroic characters.
              The freest people through history have been nomads. America has been the exception.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 8 months ago
      "Whatever they want" was really just a way of saying "they don't all have to have the same election systems in place". But that was one of those phrases that if I'd been able to say it, with the inflection and sarcasm, it would have been clearer. Sorry.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 8 months ago
        No apologies necessary...the key, as we all know, is that the constitution limits the federal governments responsibilities; meaning, No across the board rules about anything except our rights and perhaps interstate commerce.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by shaifferg 8 months ago
          Not even interstate commerce! That was one of the original nails in the constitution coffin! ICC ruling that an Iowa farmer violated ICC and federal rules by growing more wheat than permitted to, then feeding the wheat to his chickens. Ruling was the chicken eggs or chickens might be involved in interstate commerce. Not that they were just that they might be. One of the few political topics that would get my Dad's temper up....mentioning the ICC! Not sure if the farmer lost the farm or not but he was certainly penalized for exceeding his wheat planting allotment,
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 8 months ago
    When a governmental organization has a structure that allows the use of violence to demand obedience then sociopaths will almost always be the ones seeking that position. There may be a few who are moral objective thinkers but they will be ineffective because they are outnumbered.
    Participating in the process enamors those in power to believe they have been sanctioned to do whatever they can get the 'public' to agree to. Unfortunately the majority of the public are easily misled. The results will always be bad.
    Choosing a political leader (or choosing the lesser of two evils) will result in choosing a slave master.
    Haven't voted in decades. Don't participate with evil.
    I have read the suggestions put forth of how the corrupt system could be modified to make it behave properly. The system has shown its ability to do whatever it wants and ignore those who would redirect it. A paradigm shift is needed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 8 months ago
    You have a healthy mind capable of re-examining your premises. I wish all were as astute and more concentrated on seeing the truth of any matter than remaining dogmatic. You are to be heartily congratulated for being willing to look at more than just your own view of the topic and deciding on what is best despite your own inclinations. Well done!

    A note regarding the Founders. The Founding Fathers foresaw each State as having significant leeway in trying out different things, with the intent and understanding being that each State would be free to experiment and see what worked for its needs. The Founders eschewed forcing the States to comply on all but the weightiest moral principles precisely because they saw a monolithic Federal government as the quickest path to tyranny. States should be free to see what other States are doing and adopt or reject those notions as their voters see fit.

    Centralization leads to control and prevents effective, targeted problem resolution. We can see this in every single Federal program from welfare to education to energy policy. The only effective central policies are those which proscribe a position and then leave it to the local peoples and their respective governments to follow a solution which works for them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 8 months ago
      I would add to your comments about the framers and this topic that they explicitly considered and rejected Congress making the rules. As noted in the SCOTUS case of OREGON v. MITCHELL that I referenced elsewhere, one of the Justices cites the record of the changes and reasonings offered regarding that aspect.

      Specifically the original proposal was:
      "The iqualifications of the electors shall be the same, from time to time, as those of the electors in the several States, of the. most numerous branch of
      their own legislatures." Art. IV, § 1.

      "The times and places and manner of holding the
      elections of the members of each House shall be prescribed by the Legislature of each State; but their provisions concerning them may, at any time, be altered by the Legislature of the United States." 8 Art. VI, § 1."

      Clearly we can see the initial thought was to let the Congress control it when they deemed fit. This was soundly rejected:

      On August 7, Gouverneur Morris moved to strike the last clause of the proposed Art. IV, § 1, and either to provide a freehold limitation on suffrage or to add a clause permitting Congress to alter the electoral qualifications."

      This motion was opposed by Oliver Ells- worth, George Mason, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin. Ellsworth protested that the proposal favored aristocracy. If the legislature could alter qualifications, it could disqualify a great proportion of the electorate.' Mason voiced a similar objection.

      "A power to alter the qualifications would be a dangerous power in the hands of the Legislature."

      To the same effect Madison said:
      "The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fun- damental articles of republican Government, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the Legislature."
      The proposed motion was defeated by a seven-to-one vote," and no substantive change in Art. I, § 2, was pro- posed or made thereafter.

      Thus, Alexander Hamilton accurately reported the in- tent of the Convention when he wrote in The Federal- ist No. 60 that the authority of the national government "would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the
      times, the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature [i. e., Congress]." (Emphasis in original.)

      And a final note from that case:
      "And in United States v. Classic, 313 U. S. 299, the Court was careful to point out that it is the "right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted" which is a privilege of United States citizenship amenable to congressional protection. Id., at 315 (emphasis added). See also Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3230) (CCED Pa.)."

      So we can see that the Founders did in fact consider the possibility of the Legislature having that authority as well as the risks and dangers of it, and ruled those risks as "too damned high!", one might say, to be allowed that authority.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ nickursis 8 months ago
    Rainman, I think you tossed in the tuna too early. The only thing that would have stopped the theft of 2020 would have been a universal standard, paper ballots, both parties able to have observers anywhere, and voter ID. The moment you allow states to take control of federal elections you get EXACTLY what we got, one creepy corrupt secretary of state saying "we because of covid, we will start voting Aug01 and end Nov 30 or some such crap, and no way to stop, as the corrupt courts stopped every lawsuit to stop it. You want corrupt voting? Vote by mail. A dead cat can get a ballot in Oregon (dogs already do). They print huge numbers of them and they are everywhere, and then you just print a few more and slip them in. The total lack of nonesty and morality dictates a system where enough people are in the chain, to establish complete control so no a hole like the ones in Georgia (lets lock the room and pull out the suitcase and scan them over and over) or in Philly (keep the Republicans in a room 30 feet away to "observe") can happen. HR1 is just taking the techniques they perfected in the states and applying them everywhere. The people who proposed and voted for it, self indicted themselves for treason.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ mshupe 7 months, 4 weeks ago
    The idea cannot be 100% sound if the reality of the ideas is as unsound as it gets. That notion is the domain of the instrincists and the subjectivists.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 months, 4 weeks ago
      Sounds like you sort of spit out the word "subjectivists" as an insult. I didn't state that the idea IS sound; I stated that I believe the idea is sound. Every vote cast for Prez & VP, Senator, and Representative affects every single person in this country. The idea of a consistent voting method--so the coastal elitists snobs vote the same way as everyone in flyover country--makes perfect, logical sense to me, even though the "dark side" of that idea was fully illustrated by HR1 (and by S1).

      And there are things in life that are, by nature, subjective. They simply can't be viewed objectively. Here's one example: The question of whether or not these chicken wings are too hot.

      What is "too hot"? What's too hot for me may not be too hot for you. And what's too hot for someone else may not be too hot for me.

      Oh, you can objectively say that my Habanero sauce sits at 300,000 on the Scoville scale, but there is no objective way to determine whether or not that's a higher number than any one of us can handle.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ mshupe 7 months, 4 weeks ago
        Sorry, no insult intended, only pointing out an error in logic. In Objectivist epistemology, good in theory is always good in practice, otherwise the theory will be proven to be unsound.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 7 months, 4 weeks ago
    This is not an easy decision, even when you go to the constitution and the agreements whereby the states entered a federation.

    As I see it, the states have authority to make their own rules. The Texas case was that those rules, the state laws governing elections, were not adhered to and rules were illegally changed. Thus it was not the state deciding on what happened but biased administrators and law breakers.
    Again, as I see it, HR1 limits the states in making and enforcing laws, therefore unconstitutional. There would be some constitution limitations eg, on defining who is a voter, (but could a state legally enfranchise aliens, give gender X two votes each?) and racial discrimination.

    I am curious how other federations, Switzerland, Australia, Malaysia, etc handle this, I suspect there is strict central control over elections.

    Particular thanks to TheRealBill for very informative comments.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo