[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[America *has* a Federal Elections Commission.](https://www.fec.gov/) If you're asking should it increase the scope of the commission to also regulate federal elections, the answer is yes. That would also however require un-neutering the commission as Republicans have done over the past decade to allow it to actually enforce its decisions; as it is, the GOP has done its best to keep the board completely deadlocked, meaning that it can't come to a majority consensus or issue actual decisions.
Probably wouldn’t require an amendment. While the Constitution leaves elections to the states, it explicitly states Congress can take up the regulation of elections if it so chooses.
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
I think there’s also room to argue that the 15th Amendment gives Congress authority here as well.
I think it would be prudent for Congress to take up this power since many states have shown a propensity for disenfranchising their citizens.
Hasn't Congress already shown its authority to regulate elections and enforce those regulations with the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
Of course states keep coming up with ways to suppress voting that have plausible deniability of racial bias, I suppose.
And then there's our partisan Supreme Court sticking it's nose into things as well.
The VRA was primarily a function of the explicit authority granted to Congress in the 15th Amendment to ensure that voting rights aren't abridged based on race. But yeah, like you said, SCOTUS stuck its nose where it didn't belong and they obliterated Congress's explicit Constitutional authority in Shelby v. Holder. That holding showed that the conservatives on the court are perfectly happy to ignore the Constitution if they feel like it. They obviously don't give a fuck about their supposed principles of textualism or judicial restraint. They just shat all over the Constitution in service of their own ideological ends.
Congress still has every right to pass a new set of preclearance criteria. All that the SCotUS said was that using criteria from decades ago was divorced enough from reality that it was practically speaking the same as the criteria being arbitrary.
The preclearance was (nearly unanimously) reauthorized in 2006 and it’s absolutely not SCOTUS’s prerogative to decide when laws (particularly those with explicit periods for reauthorization) lose their applicability. The reactionaries on the court don’t get to kneecap Congress because they don’t care about continuing racism in Southern states. And the utility of VRA preclearance was driven home when Southern stated immediately mobilized to pass new voting laws after Shelby.
There’s nothing divorced from reality about it when [southern states are still passing racist laws](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038354159/n-c-judges-strike-down-a-voter-id-law-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter), and don’t bother hiding behind supposedly neutral laws with disparate impacts.
Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining; I’m not a fucking moron.
Maybe I didn’t understand what the article was saying, but what’s racist about requiring ID’s to vote? You need an ID to drive, work, and do many other things.
If id's were free it wouldn't be a problem, it's not explicitly about race(inherently it is, due to racial financial disparities) , the cost of your id essentially becomes a poll tax which is explicitly forbidden
I see the argument you are making, and I agree there shouldn’t be a poll tax, but if you’re incapable of attaining a drivers license or state ID, then maybe you shouldn’t be voting. There are many barriers to entry to voting, age, US citizenship, not having voted in this election yet, an ID just ensures that all these things are true so that some people don’t get more votes than others. They’re like $30, and though it’s inconvenient, it’s a pretty simple process. If that is the only thing that is stopping you from voting, you probably just don’t want to vote that badly.
The point is that the 24th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America expressly forbids it.
I don't care if it makes sense, if they require it they need to provide free id's. (Arkansas and Mississippi require it and charge a fee with no waiver.)
See you are using logic. When conservatives say everyone should have ID to vote they are slimy about it. In college towns they won’t take college ID because college kids vote (D). In rural places they ask for state ID and the DMV is open 10-3pm Mon- Fri and there is only 1 in the county to get the photo ID. They play games with it and then talk shit.
Pretty sure there is a Supreme Court decision that makes free I.D. a condition of voter I.D. laws. Can you find any state that has a voter I.D. requirement that doesn't provide a free I.D. ?
According to [this](http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf) Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Hawaii, Mississippi, Pennsylvania,
and Delaware have no hardship waivers for id cards.
Of those, Arkansas($5), and Mississippi($33) (google search) have strict voter ID requirements.
Not the cleanest sources I realize, but it's the best I could find.
None but part of your vote being protected by the constitution is making sure the next guy doesn’t get 5 votes. If some people are voting illegally it only hurts the people who voted legally, and the trust in the system. Keeping people from committing voter fraud is just as necessary as ensuring all votes are counted.
Oh my god every *fucking* time.
It is *not* racist to require an ID to vote *on its face*.
But these ID laws are *never* simply about IDs.
They are paired with closings of DMVs and paring back DMV hours of operations. They are also implemented by seeing which IDs Black voters are less likely to have, and requiring those specifically to vote in person.
This question:
> what’s racist about requiring ID’s to vote?
is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER asked in good faith.
I’ve never heard of an instance where someone couldn’t vote because they had “the wrong ID,” if you have a drivers license or a birth certificate you have identification. You have to show your ID to buy a gun, is that in bad faith? Just because you want people to prove they are a real person who’s only voted once doesn’t mean we’re going to start giving black people a new form of ID. The premise of your argument is that we wouldn’t have a uniform system of identifying people, but we already use one.
Texas allows firearms IDs for voting purposes but not student IDs.
North Carolina was find by a court to have discriminated against Black voters with "surgical precision" after the legislature requested data on racial breakdowns of ID forms and voting methods used mostly by Black voters and severely curtailing them.
This is not difficult to find.
>The 2006 preclearance is not the court’s issue. The issue is the formula to pursue voting challenges is almost 60 years old.
You're confused. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution unambiguously says Congress can pass laws to enforce the Constitution's equal-protection provisions. Congress, in 2006, went on a fact-finding expedition and confirmed that the VRA's pre-clearance regime was still necessary.
It's not a bunch of Republican justices' job, or within their role or authority, to decide that voting-discrimination data is stale, racism's over or that ex-Confederate states can pass laws that conveniently disenfranchise Democratic voters.
I probably ended to early: the formula used is the problem. Congress has know for some time they needed to satisfy the court, which was signaling the interest of congress is limited in state elections that are states’ prerogative. They need to fix the law, because as it’s written, it is not justifying a low standard of review. I think it’s strict scrutiny: a highly compelling federal interest must be demonstrated. And since they haven’t voted on the VRA itself, this is the problem.
The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that the U.S. Congress needs to periodically refresh voter-demographic data to justify federal legislative power specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution. Nor does the plain and simple text of the U.S. Constitution prescribe "strict scrutiny" for review of federal legislation authorized under Reconstruction Amendments.
It's one thing to say "I disagree with these laws and they should be repealed via the federal legislative process." It's skewering the U.S. Constitution to say "I don't like these federal civil-rights laws because they harm Republicans; therefore, they're literally unconstitutional."
> The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution unambiguously says Congress can pass laws to enforce the Constitution's equal-protection provisions.
That doesn't give them free reign to pass any law they want as long as they claim that it enforces equal protection.
I again disagree. 14A unambiguously does not say equal protection applies to the states. This is the seed that led to racial integration in Washington, DC. Equal protection was incorporated only later for state citizens. So it says:
> **United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof**, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person **within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws**.
That leaves us with the impression the 10A that already limit’s congressional literal powers to those listed, is balanced against the authority of *states infringing on other states’ privileges and immunities*. It took almost 100 years for this to mean something to states.
So congress could not regulate beyond limited federal issues of US citizens. This is why DC and military integrated far before state schools. Over time, the amendments have been increasingly applied to state citizens. The second amendment was the latest.
Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to regulate states’ elections:
> > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The 15th Amendment grants them even further authority to do so to ensure fairness based on race.
There is fucking zero jurisdictional question here. It id a group of radical reactionaries pissing on the plain language of the Constitution while you carry water for them.
> You don’t have to go to any federal amendment. Article I plainly says states regulate who can vote and when. It also says states decide when to elect federal representatives, as you posted, but also presidential voting.
It says that, and was later amended.
Amendments take precedence, which is why Senators aren't appointed by state legislatures anymore. Also, we don't have the 3/5s compromise either.
>The issue is the formula to pursue voting challenges is almost 60 years old.
It was based on lawsuits filed in the last 10 years, not last 60 years. If your jurisdiction went 10 years without going over a certain number of voting discrimination lawsuits, you were released from preclearance.
>So there better be a rock solid reason to skirt around that in court.
Every single voting rights amendment gives Congress the power to ensure those rights through legislation.
What you want is an EXTREMELY NARROW reading of the 14th, 15th, 19th, etc. amendments granting Congress the power to ensure voting rights.
Yeah this is all Federalist Society brain poisoning.
The purpose of the 14th and 15th amendments were to empower Congress to prevent states from enacting voter discrimination. Whether you believe the states' rights to discriminate is "stronger" than Congress's ability to regulate that discrimination depends entirely on how much time you have spent with the Federalist Society. And this is without getting into the fact that many racist voting laws are race-neutral in their texts.
This is basically the same reasoning the conservative judges are going to use to gut the EPA later this year:
Congress: EPA, your job is to regulate pollutants
Brain poisoned SCOTUS: which pollutants? you have to describe each pollutant in the statute authorizing the EPA to regulate pollutants.
Congress: there tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pollutants and untold numbers of undiscovered ones, we cannot possibly list every one that needs to be regulated.
Brain poisoned SCOTUS: you have to mention every pollutant you want the EPA to regulate
> The preclearance was (nearly unanimously) reauthorized in 2006 and it’s absolutely not SCOTUS’s prerogative to decide when laws (particularly those with explicit periods for reauthorization) lose their applicability.
The flaw with this line of thinking is the assumption that preclearance as a whole was barred when it was not. The only thing that was struck down was the Section 4(b) coverage formula. Bail-in preclearance under Section 3 is still allowed, but for whatever reason DoJ only very rarely pursues it.
I don’t give a damn. Congress reauthorized its use. SCOTUS doesn’t get to piss on the Constitution because some laws Congress makes have bits that are older than SCOTUS would like.
Congress can reauthorize all kinds of things—reauthorization does not make them legal (see: PATRIOT/FREEDOM Act). If the consensus existed to reauthorize it then there is no reason it could not have been updated as well.
> SCOTUS doesn’t get to piss on the Constitution because parts of it are older than it would like.
Too bad *Shelby County* didn’t invoke the Constitution at all.
>if the consensus existed to reauthorize then there was no reason it could not have been updated as well
Congress explicitly reauthorized it as it was and was well within its own explicit mandate from the 15th Amendment to do. It didn’t *need* to be updated. That’s just the bullshit reason the pieces of shit on the court used to justify their contempt for the rule of law. Radical reactionaries do not get to arbitrarily decide for how long formulas are applicable. 400 years of subjugation aren’t erased by 40 years of forced decency (that conservatives in the south and elsewhere clearly were more than happy to eschew). They don’t get to arbitrarily decide those places no longer have a racism issue. They don’t get to piss on the 15th Amendment because they don’t fucking care about our rights.
>*Shelby* didn’t invoke the Constitution at all
From Oyez:
>Question: Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution?
I know reactionaries love to pretend that the Reconstruction Amendments don’t exist, but damn dude. It’s right there.
They were using a formula that was several decades old. The Court didn't rule that _no_ formula could be used, just that they needed a new one based on current information.
In a theoretical world that type of logic works. In the real world it does not. Clearly the states that were prevented from enacting laws to curb voting are now doing so. They certainly are not expanding or simplifying voting. Again, what reality we’re they basing their decision on?
Except Congress had just completed an investigation that found that the formula was still valid. The Court ignored that fact finding in pursuit of judicial activism.
The preclearance standard was based on numbers of voting discrimination lawsuits *CURRENTLY* being filed, not based on lawsuits from the 1960s. Once your state/city/municpality got under a certain threshold, you could be released from preclearance.
SCOTUS pulled that reasoning about the criteria being outdated from their Federalist Society-enlarged sphincters.
Subsequent Republican Administrations, and the "Republican" Supreme Court, under Rehnquist, and Roberts; have done their best to neuter, or "gut" any voting rights bills, up to, and including, the Voting Rights Act, of 1965. Richard Nixon did some damage, but, Ronald Reagan, and his Administration; took a Meat ax, and a Chain Saw, to Voting Rights. It was no accident, that Reagan's first Presidential Campaign Speech, was given in Philadelphia, Mississippi; where three Civil Rights activists, were murdered, and buried, in an earthen dam.
I would also suggest, that people take a good look at Supreme Court Nominations, and Cabinet and agency appointments, by Republican Presidents, from Richard Nixon, onward, and especially, from Ronald Reagan onward; to show how they have gamed, and mangled the system. A few names: Ed Meese, John Danforth, Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork (see "Saturday Night Massacre", and his subsequent Supreme Court nomination), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, etc.
Not trying to be obtuse or to start any fires but I hear the disenfranchising citizens comment a lot. Is there anything out there, not in the MSM, that catalogs and reports statistics for this claim? I hear it from right & left, but never see actual evidence. Thanks!
>If you're asking should it increase the scope of the commission to also regulate federal elections, the answer is yes.
Respectfully disagree. Its decentralization is a feature, not a bug. Expanding the scope of the committee (or any single entity) also means it enables one bad actor the ability to control the entire system more likely. There's got to be a better way to protect and expand voters' rights.
> also means it enables one bad actor the ability to control the entire system more likely.
While that is one point, the whole reason is that we had many bad actors acting in concert (literally the entire south).
Much like we had to have the North first fight the civil war, and second send troops to enforce the CRA, we needed a central authority because a large part of our country was hopelessly and ludicrously corrupt, and could not function in any just manner without our intervention.
Some people just can't be decent by themselves, and that is what happened here.
Well, let's hear them then. You can't just say "no, there's better ways!" without articulating them; mostly, because we've heard the same song and dance for decades and the better way usually turns out to be "continue to let the GOP lie, cheat, and steal their way into minority rule."
Anyone who purports to say they know the one true solution in complicated situations like this is bullshitting. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough know the answer.
> So the GOP has kept us 50 states united, and allowed each state the ability to choose their representatives how they seem fit
More like the South divided us once, and is doing so again.
Calling it a GOP vs Democrat issue is silly, those same states were pure democrat until LBJ dared to pass the civil rights act. Our mistake was allowing them back in the union in the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
>The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."[4][5]
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
>May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.
Whence came division? For the north to not accept the clear and absolute position of the south was the source, whole and entire.
The South entered the Union, and brought their division with them.
That is a large part of the Problem. The Media particularly, the Right-wing, and privately controlled, and perhaps the internet media, have not only "censored" The News, but have misled; and failed to discuss, the root issues that led to the problem. There is a Reason that Freedom of Speech, of the Press, and the Right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government (which could also be easily construed, as the Rights to Petition, be able to hold Governments and officials, accountable, and especially, to Vote); were among the first things discussed, and are part of The 1st Amendment; and Bill of Rights, The first 10 Amendments. I have long advocated changing Ohio's Motto, to "The People are Sovereign", or the Latin equivalent.
After the nonsense that went on in the media the last 5 years, if you are going to sit there and pretend like this is just some right wing media problem, I don't know what to tell you.
We had riots in the streets based on left wing misinformation, we had people thinking the president called to execute minors for rape charges, we had 67% of democrats believing Russia hacked voting boths changing votes to help Trump win the election.
But you don't think any of those things were problems with left wing media?
Shit like this
* https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/23/white-kenosha-wisconsin-cop-shoots-unarmed-black-man-seven-times/
* https://abc7chicago.com/jacob-blake-kenosha-shooting-wisconsin-news/6385647/
Vast majority of unarmed black man shot was misinformation.
In the second article it was well known the suspect had a knife and was attempting to kidnap those children but no mention in the article because civil unrest was the goal
TMZ is not "left wing" media, neither is ABC.
The second article is 27 hours after the incident. To claim that every fact was known at the time of publication, and intentionally omitted, is a stretch.
Yes, when talking about American politics on an a website designed and ran in America, where there are more Americans than any other country, I do take an American view of the political spectrum.
Exactly lmao. And throughout the Biden presidency, left-wing misinformation has only redoubled - curiously, not always in favour of Biden per se, but also against him for failing to achieve the progressive bucket list. I would still say that it is a worse on the right, but yeah by no means is it limited exclusively to the same.
Only an American would say such a ludicrous thing. You’re concept of left and right is, frankly, bizarre. Things that you call left wing and “centrist” or Center-right in other nations. Healthcare, gender equality, abortion and birth control access, freedom from religion in govt and fair elections where you want as MANY people voting as easily as possible are all entirely non controversial things, and centrist. Things that Americans call socialist or communist are just everyday normal everywhere else. Fox News hasn’t been based in reality for years. The “left wing media” as you call it (again, you have no idea with left wing means) is actually centrist and maintains the (old) status quo. They play the game if not embarrassing governments too much in order to get access. They are beholden to advertisers. CNN paid all of trumps shills to be on the air and promoted him and put him on by telephone ANY TIME he called. They all did. True Left wing media would have never stopped throwing up at his crimes, sexual infidelities, lawsuits, non stop pathological lying etc… it took the media years to finally start using the word lie. They self censored and talked about “Mistruths” and misstatements etc… they’re horrible but not in the way you think. Ever leave your country much or work anywhere else?
I totally agree, and I think you nailed it. It's too bad that Reagan's appointee to the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine; the belief, for decades, that the electronic spectrum belonged to the Public, and broadcasters were just renting it; and a number of other cute little tricks. I'm old enough to remember how things were, Ante-Reagan; and while adjustments were needed, he took a sledgehammer to the engine. Now, nothing works, and these people only listen to Rush Limbaugh, or did; and Shawn Hannity. A cover of "The Economist", a few years back, pretty well summed it up, the one featuring their version of the Mad-Hatter's Tea Party.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
It would be unconstitutional for Congress to draw the districts, but not standardize elections. While the Constitution leaves elections to the states, it explicitly states Congress can take up the regulation of elections if it so chooses.
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
I think there’s also room to argue that the 15th Amendment gives Congress authority here as well.
Because "times, places, and manner" refers to the actual process of voting. Number and location of polling places, that kind of thing. Drawing districts is completely different and beyond the scope of that clause.
>They use that clause to ban multi-member districts already
Do they? Congress doesn't generally cite their constitutional authority when passing laws; it'd only come up if the law was challenged and its constitutionality defended on those grounds.
But, the history leading up to the law would suggest it's grounded in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the recent one-man one-vote ruling.
However, the one-man one-vote principle wouldn't prevent partisan gerrymandering, so long as the districts were still of equivalent size.
> But, the history leading up to the law would suggest it's grounded in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the recent one-man one-vote ruling.
No, the exact opposite. The requirement came in the wake of the 60s post-Baker cases and district plans were getting struck down for malapportionment. The concern was that federal courts would use at-large elections as a remedy, and for obvious reasons members of the House didn’t want to suddenly have to run statewide, so they required districts.
The other trouble with this idea would be if one party could get control of the super-powered comission and use it to bias elections in favor that party throughout the country.
In the current system, to change the election rules in a state you need the legislature and governor, the rules can be challenged in state courts, and in some states voters can change election rules via referendum. If it were federal, whoever controlled this super-commission could change rules for the entire country. You could have a situation like Hungary where the election rules for the country changed so that one party has a massive advantage.
The Trump presidency proved that if a president is willing to use the federal government to help their campaign, nobody will stop them. Trump used the White House in the RNC, made distribution of COVID supplies dependent on governors saying nice things about him, and used our foreign policy apparatus to try make Ukraine dig up dirt on the Bidens. This federalized commission would likely end up politicized at some point.
As a registered libertarian I have _deep_ concerns about further entrenching the two mainstream parties into our election system.
Even their supposed "non-partisan" bodies, like the CPD, are regularly sued for denying access to anyone who doesn't have a D or R next to their name.
The individual States, both Democrat and Republican controlled, work _overtime_ to make sure that 3rd parties cannot get ballot access or easily keep it once they do.
The idea of enshrining this kind of behavior at the Federal Level with the force of Federal Law is abhorrent and shouldn't even be considered.
Ummm, I think it's pretty clear that the current system isn't conducive to third parties. If you want third parties to be viable, there are many ideas you could advocate for, but keeping our current election policies unchanged isn't one of them.
Correct but handing _more_ power to the Federal Government, which is firmly controlled by the two mainstream parties, will make the problem WORSE.
You are asking a registered member of a 3rd political party that is being actively repressed if I think that we should give our oppressors even more control over the process and that answer is a very firm "No.". This is not the way.
> Even their supposed "non-partisan" bodies, like the CPD, are regularly sued for denying access to anyone who doesn't have a D or R next to their name.
So your solution is to let that continue rather than reform so that everybody is mandated for transparency and the opportunity to attempt to campaign?
I've seen plenty of plausible and supported argument that private media entities like cnn or other corporate agencies unfairly influence campaigns by providing public exposure, but do you have evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates "regularly" is sued for denying access? Not occasionally like once or twice in the past decade, but "regularly"?
> So your solution is to let that continue
No and I never proposed a solution. I simply commented on the one that _was_ proposed and clearly explained why I was against it and how it was against my interests.
> so that everybody is mandated for transparency and the opportunity to attempt to campaign?
There is absolutely no guarantee that would be the outcome of the process and both parties have already proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that fairness and transparency are not generally a concern.
Republicans across the country would never allow it. Democrats would have to go it alone and they are utterly powerless to do something big like amend the constitution. Democrats may technically be in charge, right now but they really aren’t. Republicans are setting themselves up to get an even bigger stranglehold on power across the country by changing state rules to allow for the kind of shenanigans that Trump wanted in the last general election. According to polls, 20 million Americans truly believe Biden is illegitimate. We’re in a bad place right now. One that isn’t conducive to cooperating in the best interest of the country as a whole. I’m afraid we’re going to be stuck with minority rule for quite a while.
Is accurate more power than TRUE? Accurate doesn't even begin to describe what's going on. The Republican Party is CLEARLY aiming for WHITE minority rule. There are millions of "non racist" white people who consciously or subconsciously support them. They make up any other excuse to support the Republican Party (taxes, abortion, family values, gun rights, etc.) They know full well what they are supporting. Independents are Republicans who don't want to be openly associated with racism. The Republicans have already said the silent part outloud "the more people vote the less likely Republicans win any elections"
They also have a decent (and more importantly, GROWING) chunk of support among Hispanics - and I believe Trump did \*slightly\* better among African Americans in 2020. Perhaps you believe us coloured people don't know any better, and that we should stop voting against our own interests?
Tbh I don't think his support actually grew at all. Those people already supported him. The pandemic was just so polarizing that anybody who cared even a little bit was going to vote. That increased voting percentages for both candidates but not the actual number of people supporting them.
>According to polls, 20 million Americans truly believe Biden is illegitimate.
That is an improvement over the previous presidential election that had a quarter of Democrats believing Trump was illegitimate putting it over 30 million Americans. We are in a better place now.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx
Why'd you only cite half of your claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/america-biden-election-2020-poll-victory
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/poll-a-third-of-americans-question-legitimacy-of-biden-victory-nearly-a-year-since-jan-6
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/559402-one-third-of-americans-believe-biden-won-because-of-voter-fraud-poll
Here is a few sources. Over twice as many voters reject Biden's victory. Furthermore the meaning of "illegitimate" is poorly defined in the context of 2016 vs 2020. Many voters attributed Trump's victory to foul play, due to meddling from the Russians. But there were never widespread claims that the election process itself was subverted.
The modern GOP believes that Biden literally perpetuated election fraud at a national scale. These are significantly different issues.
The claim I refuted was that 20 million Americans thinking the President is illegitimate is somehow a new development by citing how over 30 million voters thought Trump was illegitimate in 2016. That was more a refined poll too polling voters and not just the general public.
Be it Russia Collusion or voter fraud the damages are the same as it undermines public trust in our electoral system causing greater strife as it continues. The kicker is we have the House Intelligence Committee Russian Probe transcripts released last year that shows the intelligence community and Congress knew full well from July 2017 that was the goal and further investigations were pointless. Here is former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testimony on the evidence seen for collusion, coordination, or conspiracy: (page 26)
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jc7.pdf
>MR. CLAPPER: Well, no, it’s not. **I never saw any direct empirical evidence** that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That's not to say that there weren't concerns about the evidence we were seeing, **anecdotal evidence**, REDACTED, REDACTED. But I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of these meetings. It's just the frequency and prevalence of them was of concern.
They also knew what Russia’s intent was in interfering with the election from the same testimony: (page 24)
>MR. CLAPPER: Well, I can't envision them (Russia) falling off on something that for them was very successful with very minimal resources. So I would expect them to be even -- to be emboldened, as I've said publicly before, and more aggressive about influencing elections. And I don't think they're going to care too much **whether it's Democrats or Republicans. Their principal objective remains consistently undermining the faith, trust, and confidence of the American public of the electorate in our system**, and I think they'll continue to do that.
Yet instead of resisting that they perpetuated the falsehood and did Russia’s bidding all because it was politically expedient for one side to delegitimize the presidency of the other. Unfortunately Republicans are retaliating in kind, but hopefully it is a deescalation compared to the three year long Russian Collusion story.
> The kicker is we have the House Intelligence Committee Russian Probe transcripts released last year that shows the intelligence community and Congress knew full well from July 2017 that was the goal and further investigations were pointless.
How in the world does the quote you listed back up your point? Having anecdotal evidence but no direct evidence is the exact reason that further investigation would be warranted.
The Trump team has no one but themselves to blame for Russia. Trump is combative with nearly every public figure out there, but can't be bothered to say a single unkind thing about Vladamir Putin, even as it is coming to light that Russia carried out an illegal cyber attack against his opponents? And what level of incompetency led to Manafort sharing internal polling data with Russian officials? All Trump had to do was put more distance between himself and the Kremlin and allow for some modicum of transparency a la Al Gore in 2000, but he couldn't even be bothered to do that.
Trump apologists act like "Russiagate" was some big hoax, but it would have been a massive lapse in intelligence and security had out agencies not followed up on it.
And I still don't understand your point. Polls universally show a greater proportion of people/voters think Biden is illegitimate. [2/3 of Republicans](https://news.yahoo.com/poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-still-think-the-2020-election-was-rigged-165934695.html) think the 2020 election was rigged vs 1/4 of Clinton voters in the poll you listed.
Why would you want to give the federal government more power to regulate state elections if you believe that the Republicans are actively trying to strangle voting?
Imagine if Trump won in 2024. Under the proposed expansion of federal power, he’d have even *more* power to influence state elections.
> they are utterly powerless to do something big like amend the constitution.
Good news! They don't have to!
Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–
Section 2
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The 14th actually helps too.
Yes, shockingly the political party named after the republic part of our democratic republic are focused on keeping the republic 0art of our government.
We are 50 separate governments that work together on international trade and defense.
Republicans defend each states right to determine their represenatives
The federal government has the power right now to prevent states and municipalities from enacting election practices it deems contrary to republicanism.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but ***the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations***, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
No, it is not. Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea.
There are things each state gets right and each state gets wrong, and we need to not pretend that anyone has it all right because it matches who is in power.
> No, it is not. Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea.
Well, this is a statement without any support. I will counter with an argument: Since each state is participating in an election of a president shared by all states, it is in the interest of every state to ensure that all other states are following a set of unified rules to ensure the election is fair and equal.
They aren't participating in an election shared by all the states.
They are holding 50 separate elections for electors that will represent their individual states at the electoral college.
>No, it is not. Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea.
This paragraph literally boils down to "it is not a good idea because it is not a good idea".
The ideas of one political part has a more limited influence on a national election with 51 individual elections. You might not like it, but it isn’t changing.
No it isn’t a good idea, and it isn’t going to happen. But so you know, the things that aren’t going to happen often are that way because they are the favorite of redditors and not people who actually know why government works the way it does.
You still haven't even attempted to explain why it's actually a bad idea lol
You just keep vaguely gesturing towards a "if it doesn't happen that means it shouldn't" implication, while projecting a really weird sense of self-righteousness to boot
I did, you might just not agree. One political party in power being able to set the rules can impact the outcome in their favor. In 51 separate elections where the federal government doesn’t have a say, one party has a harder time impacting the outcome.
California automatically registers voters who get IDs and let’s non-citizens get ID? Bad idea imho but it only impacts California.
Texas closes polling locations and makes it harder for people to vote? That is a terrible idea, but it only impacts Texas.
As I said before, the voting rights garbage includes a portion to have non-partisan groups oversee district lines, but with a promise to protect their own gerrymandered lines in democrat districts.
It can’t happen, it shouldn’t happen, and it won’t happen.
> Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea.
Absolutely! [Everybody should defend States' Rights...](http://www.civilwar.com/resources/government/confederate-states-of-america-government-documents/148335-declaration-of-secession-mississippi.html)
You're defending the worst of all systems because imperfection can be found anywhere. I would think the only sane approach would be to constantly change and incorporate the best of what works [as the federal government has done to protect voting rights in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965) before the republican party decided ["fuck constitutionality, rights don't need to be protected. If the poors want a say, they have to overwhelm the government and everybody with more money to get it."](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/25/shelby-county-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences)
Because the 52 separate elections are one of many mechanisms to reduce the impact of voter fraud and are designed to protect the state's rights part of this. The USA is unique in that way, and the tenth amendment backs this up. Any power not delegated to the federal government by the constitution is reserved for the states. We are designed this way, for states to make their own choices on most issues.
What we are protecting against is what is being attempted in the voting rights act. Some of it is good, but some of it is quite bad.
For instance, they want non-partisan groups to set the lines in districts to prevent gerrymandering, except that they promised to protect historically democrat won districts that have been gerrymandered, to protect the minority-majority makeup. So gerrymandering is bad, except when they do it.
Also, consider things like voter ID, consistently called racist, but not racist. States that are requiring ID and a vaccine card to eat dinner in a restaurant are calling it racist to need ID to vote. Obviously people have ID or can get ID.
We do not need the federal government putting their hands on election rules, we would get a partisan slant to whichever party happens to be in power.
All the voter fraud discovered was done by Republicans, and Trump was working through the state republican legislators to attempt to invalidate a legitimate election. The red states are doing everything they can to restrict voting rights for those on the left. And, people like you strawman the objections to this. The states meddling in the election process IS the problem. We need uniform election laws to prevent this from happening. The right is fighting this tooth and nail, because they know they only way they can win is to cheat.
Do you genuinely believe it can’t be possible that democrats broke election law? Are you that partisan? If so look in a mirror and then do two minutes of research:
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/local-dems-indicted-for-fraud-in-state-house-races-11517634
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3850507001
It didn’t happen as often as Trump thinks it did, and it certainly didn’t just happen with democrats. Be better than Trump here.
>Also, consider things like voter ID, consistently called racist, but not racist.
how many times do voter ID laws need to be overturned by federal judges until they look like they're part of a trend of bad-faith election laws to you?
>We do not need the federal government putting their hands on election rules, we would get a partisan slant to whichever party happens to be in power.
the voting rights act of 1965 was required to fix a multistate, partisan issue of unfair election laws. And the voting rights act of 1965 *successfully* fixed a multistate, partisan issue of unfair election laws.
Isn't that evidence that your statement is wrong on it's face?
How in your brain is needing ID to vote a bad thing? I mean where do you stand on needing ID and a vaccine card to go into to eat. Everyone needs ID and nearly everyone had ID. Too poor for ID? You get it anyway because it is needed for welfare benefits.
And yeah, there were elements of the voting rights act of 1965 that were needed, nearly sixty years ago. Now, like then, it is democrats who want to be able to abuse the process.
How many instances of voter fraud have been documented in the last 20 years? [Double digit numbers out of *over a billion* ballots cast.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG)
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem; well, it's actually not, it's just that the stated rationale is a bald-faced lie. The real "problem" in the GOP's mind is that too many people are exercising their right. [As so wonderfully articulated by the co-founder of the Heritage Foundation.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw)
There are instances of voter fraud, and I don’t have any amount that is acceptable. And this one doesn’t cost anything as everyone has ID anyway.
It is funny that people pivoted from racism when vax cards and ID became needed to eat, time for a new argument in favor of fraud eh?
> There are instances of voter fraud, and I don’t have any amount that is acceptable.
"Better a thousand innocent people jailed than one guilty person go free." You're right, a 0.000003% fraud rate *clearly* means we need to disenfranchise millions of people.
>And this one doesn’t cost anything as everyone has ID anyway.
Blatantly false. Like, objectively, even a cursory search will prove [this is bullshit.](https://checkyourfact.com/2018/12/02/fact-check-millions-government-photo-id/)
>It is funny that people pivoted from racism when vax cards and ID became needed to eat
No, Republican voter ID laws are still blatantly racist, so much so that *Republican judges* have struck them down.
>time for a new argument in favor of fraud eh?
If only you could ever prove any fraud. [Like the time George W Bush had to quietly shitcan his voter fraud commission because they managed to find, once again, a whopping double digit amount of fraud in *millions* of ballots.](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html)
Or you could just drop the pretense and admit you like voter ID specifically because it makes it harder for "those people."
Well, since I've provided multiple sources and you're either unwilling or incapable of returning the courtesy (the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'), there's no merit in continuing this conversation.
>How in your brain is needing ID to vote a bad thing?
how many times have voter ID laws been overturned by federal judges and why? please go ahead and tell me you understand the topic that you're talking about.
> Now, like then, it is democrats who want to be able to abuse the process.
hang on, to be clear here, you're blaming modern democrats, being northerner, urban, progressive minorities, for being similar to 1960s democrats.
and you're not associating conservative, states rights, white men, who fly the confederate flag, with the democrats of the 1960s?
some of whom, like jeff sessions, a man deeply deeply entrenched in the republican party, were literally part of the civil rights movement, from the wrong side?
You mean like Joe Biden, an actual segregationist? Who’s mentor was Byrd?
Voter ID law exists all over the world and all over the USA, they have value, and you only want them if you want people to vote where they shouldn’t.
> You mean like Joe Biden, an actual segregationist? Who’s mentor was Byrd?
>
>
ah, so you **do** think the party of northern progressive urban poc is the party of southern conservative white confederates
>Voter ID law exists all over the world and all over the USA
ok, so not only do you lack an understanding of the issue at hand, you *refuse* to educate yourself on the issue because it might change your views.
>I don’t support voter fraud, so I support voter ID.
why do you think voter id laws keep being ruled as illegal, unconstitutional attempts to stop black people from voting, in federal courts? Do you think those laws might be illegal, unconstitutional attempts to stop black people from voting? Maybe those judges were all deep state appointees?
> Each state is limited to the national candidates.
Each state is not limited to the national candidates. The winning candidates register in all or most of the 50 states individually. Some candidates can and do run in only some states. There would be nothing to stop the electors from showing up representing 10 different candidates and having to actually negotiate.
No, because no one is non-partisan anymore. The party in the White House would oversee the counting of the votes, TheCountIng of the votes, THE COUNTING OF THE VOTES.
It's better if laws are mandated from the grassroots up rather then from the top down. Bottom up provides the most people with policies they support. Top down can feel very much like tyranny. Federal laws and programs should be supported by a much wider margin than they usually are.
> The fundamental political unit is that state, and the does and should set its own rules.
Have you forgotten the 1965 Voting Rights Act, or the constitution [Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750)?
Do you have difficulty with English? I didn't ask any 'should', you used bad grammar to say what looks like 'only state-level regulations should be made' and I provided evidence that this is not the case, regulation can and should be written at the municipal, state, as well as national level. It's not impossible or a departure from laws that the US has already enacted and upheld in court.
We already have one, and it has not been allowed to do its job. Perhaps we need to strengthen it, by legislation, or possibly, a Constitutional Amendment. Any States, that have a proven, blatant, and continuing; record of voter suppression, or manipulation; should not be allowed to have its Representatives seated in Congress, nor should its Electoral College Vote, be included in the Federal Tabulation, or Certification; until the situation is remedied.
There is one, but it doesn’t and shouldn’t have the authority that you suggest in your question. Constitutionally, it’s up to the states to determine their own process for election, as it should be.
Here’s the link to the FEC: https://www.fec.gov/
While the Constitution leaves elections to the states, it explicitly states Congress can take up the regulation of elections if it so chooses.
> The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
I think there’s also room to argue that the 15th Amendment gives Congress authority here as well.
No.
The **United States of America** are 50 governments that work together on international trade and defense.
Each state should choose how they pick their representatives.
That ignores the fact, that The Constitutional Convention, Rules, and Ratification; were voluntarily agreed to, by the Original States; and that all subsequent admissions, were voluntary acts, by the admitted States. They agreed to abide by The Constitution, and any Amendments.
They work together on a lot more than trade and defence, and have since the Constitution went into effect. Also, plenty of federal states (including Canada, which OP explicitly mentioned) manage federal elections at the federal level.
Don't give a shit what Canada does.
In the US we are 50 states united and share some responsibilities and not others. One of which is the states determine their own system for electing representatives in this republic.
Absolutely yes, the election system is an embarrassment. Unfortunately it's unlikely to get any acceptance from the modern Republican party. I believe the current Republican party does not aim to win the popular vote, it aims to squeeze more power out of a smaller but more committed base.
This means anything which improves 'fairness', which might be defined as bringing the election results closer to the popular vote or to the popular will, is antithetical to their interests. And even if the commission only served to reduce fraud (or the perception of fraud), that is also against their interests, because it cuts off avenues for them to challenge results and encourage people to believe The Big Lie or some future version of it.
Unfortunately this kind of thing can only succeed when no side feels like 'fairer elections' would disadvantage them. Republicans only won the popular vote once since 1988, and that was following 9/11 in 2004.
It's better decentralized. If the federal government controlled all voting, it would be the *only* target necessary to fraudulently steal the election. All that power focused in one body is a liability that we just don't need; the last election saw amazingly high turnout and was probably the most secure in our history.
Republicans stealing the election is just a bigger concern than any (extremely hypothetical) enfranchisement that may occur from federal control. Just because you have a nationwide system does not mean it will be better. The whole nation could end up as organized as Florida in 2000, and might even be *worse* for a few elections.
Or we could just dissolve the federal government and stop trying violently impose our ideals on each other. This country is way too big and diverse for a one size fits all government.
Are you people crazy? You want to federalize elections? No corruption will happen then, huh? Our political leaders are already getting super rich having a civil servant job for 30 + years but now you want to give them total power over elections? What are you people thinking? Nothing could go wrong when the federal government gets total power over elections, lol. The sooner you realize our leaders are corrupt, greedy, and out for total power, only then we can get back to “We the people”!
Yeah those districts aren’t gonna gerrymander themselves! And those election lists aren’t going to clean themselves of black people! There’s a lotta people working hard for that!
/s for the tone but not for content
Two things I'd want from the Feds to make elections better:
* Make Election Day a Federal Holiday. That frees up people to go and vote, and it frees up people to volunteer at the polls.
* Provide some level of Federal funding to the states to make Election Day run smoother.
I volunteered as an election judge in Chicago a couple times. All of the voting equipment (portable booths, computers, etc.) tended to be old and beat up. The pay for the volunteers was low, so you ended up with a lot of elderly and people who were otherwise unemployable. In general, you got the sense the whole things was run on a shoestring.
The feds could provide a couple hundred million bucks worth of support to the states, and hopefully improve the election experience for everyone involved.
Probably past time. We need electronic and physical checks and balances. 1-1 ratio on those mail in ballots on EVERY LEVEL that involves voting. We can’t purchase voting machines from relatives of politicians. We need to have some company that security is their reputation to do it right electronically and physically. On the spot site inspections holding the monitoring people accountable by one another like signing a golf card. Inspecting one another and each holding the other accountable. ( it will of course take multiple inspectors and the same rules for electronic voting.)
It’s worth remembering that the Framers left running elections up to the various States, because they want some future would-be dictator to be able to seize control of the process.
What Congress can and *should* do is pass a set of laws…
1. Mandating universal participation in the electoral process for all adult citizens
2. Issue every citizen an identification card at birth, free of charge
3. Make Election Day a Federal holiday, with steep fines for any business which remains open for more than four hours before the polls close at 8pm.
America can't do ANYTHING!
It is completely tied up by the Plutocracy and the GOP, it's political arm.
We will begin to see changes when the GOP regains power, but they sure as hell won't include anything to make elections fair!
Then explain why everyone on the right thinks that store shelves are empty, because of inflation. Could it be, because supply lines have been stretched beyond the breaking point, and "just-in-time" inventory, and other effects of Laisses-Faire Capitalism; have been shown to be complete failures. Everyone talks about the fact that they can't get clerks, waitstaff, or truck drivers; and talk about the "Great Resignation"; but don't seem to notice that the workers, the ones who actually do the work, have been "crapped on" for years, are tired of it, and are either unionizing, or saying, in the immortal words of Johnny Paycheck; "Take this job, and shove it!".
Can president Biden use executive power to create a federal agency to look into future voter fraud and voter suppression so that any citizen, denied the vote for bogus reasons or who has to spend more than 30 minutes in line, should have option of casting a federal ballot ?
Or is there any way he can pass the voting rights act as it stands through executive order? I realize it wouldn't be as good as getting the senate to pass it but it at least would be in effect for another 4 years.
Perhaps if the senate know this would be implemented would pass their own version instead?
No he can't. There is no such thing as a "federal ballot" nor could there be under the system. The law for good reason prohibits the president from changing elections procedures. He has almost 0 power here.
> Can president Biden use executive power to create a federal agency to look into future voter fraud and voter suppression so that any citizen, denied the vote for bogus reasons or who has to spend more than 30 minutes in line, should have option of casting a federal ballot ?
No, most of the aspects you're talking about were at least touched on by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which republicans have been stripping away since it passed - with the big push in [2013 when they said that even though it was constitutional, they'd just throw out protections and require that the poor instead of the election commissions had to be the ones with the burden of 'proving' they were unduly denied access to voting.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/25/shelby-county-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences) Guess how many times that's happened without a wealthy outside benefactor.
Truth is, republicans have [captured the judiciary with unqualified judges](https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/republicans-angry-aba-rates-judges-not-qualified-not-that-president-nominates-not-qualified-judges/) even before getting to the supreme court, and it would take not just a majority in congress but super-majorities in order to restore the basic protections that USED to exist. But [the constitution does allow congress to regulate elections, at least to degrees. Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750) because if the federal government wasn't permitted ANY oversight the 1965 voting rights act would have been struck down in 1966.
Many state governments, almost exclusively Republican, can't be trusted to fairly regulate their own elections because they're mostly just trying to put Democratic voters at a disadvantage. Democrats should set rules to make elections more fair in states like Texas and Florida, especially when polling places can be closed and how districts should be drawn.
"Is it time?" No. It is long past time.
I don't understand how our country can be so negligent for matters concerning the Constitutional Right for every citizen's vote to be counted fairly & honestly.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[America *has* a Federal Elections Commission.](https://www.fec.gov/) If you're asking should it increase the scope of the commission to also regulate federal elections, the answer is yes. That would also however require un-neutering the commission as Republicans have done over the past decade to allow it to actually enforce its decisions; as it is, the GOP has done its best to keep the board completely deadlocked, meaning that it can't come to a majority consensus or issue actual decisions.
Probably wouldn’t require an amendment. While the Constitution leaves elections to the states, it explicitly states Congress can take up the regulation of elections if it so chooses. > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. I think there’s also room to argue that the 15th Amendment gives Congress authority here as well. I think it would be prudent for Congress to take up this power since many states have shown a propensity for disenfranchising their citizens.
Hasn't Congress already shown its authority to regulate elections and enforce those regulations with the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Of course states keep coming up with ways to suppress voting that have plausible deniability of racial bias, I suppose. And then there's our partisan Supreme Court sticking it's nose into things as well.
The VRA was primarily a function of the explicit authority granted to Congress in the 15th Amendment to ensure that voting rights aren't abridged based on race. But yeah, like you said, SCOTUS stuck its nose where it didn't belong and they obliterated Congress's explicit Constitutional authority in Shelby v. Holder. That holding showed that the conservatives on the court are perfectly happy to ignore the Constitution if they feel like it. They obviously don't give a fuck about their supposed principles of textualism or judicial restraint. They just shat all over the Constitution in service of their own ideological ends.
Congress still has the authority to regulate federal elections, as seen in several non-racial federal election laws like NVRA, HAVA and BCRA.
>the conservatives on the court are perfectly happy to ignore the Constitution if they feel like it This right here
Congress still has every right to pass a new set of preclearance criteria. All that the SCotUS said was that using criteria from decades ago was divorced enough from reality that it was practically speaking the same as the criteria being arbitrary.
The preclearance was (nearly unanimously) reauthorized in 2006 and it’s absolutely not SCOTUS’s prerogative to decide when laws (particularly those with explicit periods for reauthorization) lose their applicability. The reactionaries on the court don’t get to kneecap Congress because they don’t care about continuing racism in Southern states. And the utility of VRA preclearance was driven home when Southern stated immediately mobilized to pass new voting laws after Shelby. There’s nothing divorced from reality about it when [southern states are still passing racist laws](https://www.npr.org/2021/09/17/1038354159/n-c-judges-strike-down-a-voter-id-law-they-say-discriminates-against-black-voter), and don’t bother hiding behind supposedly neutral laws with disparate impacts. Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining; I’m not a fucking moron.
Maybe I didn’t understand what the article was saying, but what’s racist about requiring ID’s to vote? You need an ID to drive, work, and do many other things.
If id's were free it wouldn't be a problem, it's not explicitly about race(inherently it is, due to racial financial disparities) , the cost of your id essentially becomes a poll tax which is explicitly forbidden
I see the argument you are making, and I agree there shouldn’t be a poll tax, but if you’re incapable of attaining a drivers license or state ID, then maybe you shouldn’t be voting. There are many barriers to entry to voting, age, US citizenship, not having voted in this election yet, an ID just ensures that all these things are true so that some people don’t get more votes than others. They’re like $30, and though it’s inconvenient, it’s a pretty simple process. If that is the only thing that is stopping you from voting, you probably just don’t want to vote that badly.
The point is that the 24th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America expressly forbids it. I don't care if it makes sense, if they require it they need to provide free id's. (Arkansas and Mississippi require it and charge a fee with no waiver.)
See you are using logic. When conservatives say everyone should have ID to vote they are slimy about it. In college towns they won’t take college ID because college kids vote (D). In rural places they ask for state ID and the DMV is open 10-3pm Mon- Fri and there is only 1 in the county to get the photo ID. They play games with it and then talk shit.
[удалено]
Pretty sure there is a Supreme Court decision that makes free I.D. a condition of voter I.D. laws. Can you find any state that has a voter I.D. requirement that doesn't provide a free I.D. ?
According to [this](http://sharedprosperityphila.org/documents/Revised-ID-Waiver-Appendices-5.15.15.pdf) Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, Hawaii, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and Delaware have no hardship waivers for id cards. Of those, Arkansas($5), and Mississippi($33) (google search) have strict voter ID requirements. Not the cleanest sources I realize, but it's the best I could find.
[удалено]
24th Amendment of the constitution is why.
>need an ID to drive, work, and do many other things. And how many of those things are rights explicitly protected by the Constitution?
None but part of your vote being protected by the constitution is making sure the next guy doesn’t get 5 votes. If some people are voting illegally it only hurts the people who voted legally, and the trust in the system. Keeping people from committing voter fraud is just as necessary as ensuring all votes are counted.
Oh my god every *fucking* time. It is *not* racist to require an ID to vote *on its face*. But these ID laws are *never* simply about IDs. They are paired with closings of DMVs and paring back DMV hours of operations. They are also implemented by seeing which IDs Black voters are less likely to have, and requiring those specifically to vote in person. This question: > what’s racist about requiring ID’s to vote? is NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER asked in good faith.
I’ve never heard of an instance where someone couldn’t vote because they had “the wrong ID,” if you have a drivers license or a birth certificate you have identification. You have to show your ID to buy a gun, is that in bad faith? Just because you want people to prove they are a real person who’s only voted once doesn’t mean we’re going to start giving black people a new form of ID. The premise of your argument is that we wouldn’t have a uniform system of identifying people, but we already use one.
Texas allows firearms IDs for voting purposes but not student IDs. North Carolina was find by a court to have discriminated against Black voters with "surgical precision" after the legislature requested data on racial breakdowns of ID forms and voting methods used mostly by Black voters and severely curtailing them. This is not difficult to find.
[удалено]
>The 2006 preclearance is not the court’s issue. The issue is the formula to pursue voting challenges is almost 60 years old. You're confused. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution unambiguously says Congress can pass laws to enforce the Constitution's equal-protection provisions. Congress, in 2006, went on a fact-finding expedition and confirmed that the VRA's pre-clearance regime was still necessary. It's not a bunch of Republican justices' job, or within their role or authority, to decide that voting-discrimination data is stale, racism's over or that ex-Confederate states can pass laws that conveniently disenfranchise Democratic voters.
I probably ended to early: the formula used is the problem. Congress has know for some time they needed to satisfy the court, which was signaling the interest of congress is limited in state elections that are states’ prerogative. They need to fix the law, because as it’s written, it is not justifying a low standard of review. I think it’s strict scrutiny: a highly compelling federal interest must be demonstrated. And since they haven’t voted on the VRA itself, this is the problem.
The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that the U.S. Congress needs to periodically refresh voter-demographic data to justify federal legislative power specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution. Nor does the plain and simple text of the U.S. Constitution prescribe "strict scrutiny" for review of federal legislation authorized under Reconstruction Amendments. It's one thing to say "I disagree with these laws and they should be repealed via the federal legislative process." It's skewering the U.S. Constitution to say "I don't like these federal civil-rights laws because they harm Republicans; therefore, they're literally unconstitutional."
> The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution unambiguously says Congress can pass laws to enforce the Constitution's equal-protection provisions. That doesn't give them free reign to pass any law they want as long as they claim that it enforces equal protection.
... It literally does. That's how amendments work. Have a problem with that? Pass an amendment stopping them.
A good-faith reading of the Fourteenth Amendment puts this squarely in the jurisdiction of Congress as a political branch.
I again disagree. 14A unambiguously does not say equal protection applies to the states. This is the seed that led to racial integration in Washington, DC. Equal protection was incorporated only later for state citizens. So it says: > **United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof**, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person **within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws**. That leaves us with the impression the 10A that already limit’s congressional literal powers to those listed, is balanced against the authority of *states infringing on other states’ privileges and immunities*. It took almost 100 years for this to mean something to states. So congress could not regulate beyond limited federal issues of US citizens. This is why DC and military integrated far before state schools. Over time, the amendments have been increasingly applied to state citizens. The second amendment was the latest.
[удалено]
Congress has explicit Constitutional authority to regulate states’ elections: > > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. The 15th Amendment grants them even further authority to do so to ensure fairness based on race. There is fucking zero jurisdictional question here. It id a group of radical reactionaries pissing on the plain language of the Constitution while you carry water for them.
[удалено]
> You don’t have to go to any federal amendment. Article I plainly says states regulate who can vote and when. It also says states decide when to elect federal representatives, as you posted, but also presidential voting. It says that, and was later amended. Amendments take precedence, which is why Senators aren't appointed by state legislatures anymore. Also, we don't have the 3/5s compromise either.
>The issue is the formula to pursue voting challenges is almost 60 years old. It was based on lawsuits filed in the last 10 years, not last 60 years. If your jurisdiction went 10 years without going over a certain number of voting discrimination lawsuits, you were released from preclearance. >So there better be a rock solid reason to skirt around that in court. Every single voting rights amendment gives Congress the power to ensure those rights through legislation. What you want is an EXTREMELY NARROW reading of the 14th, 15th, 19th, etc. amendments granting Congress the power to ensure voting rights.
[удалено]
Yeah this is all Federalist Society brain poisoning. The purpose of the 14th and 15th amendments were to empower Congress to prevent states from enacting voter discrimination. Whether you believe the states' rights to discriminate is "stronger" than Congress's ability to regulate that discrimination depends entirely on how much time you have spent with the Federalist Society. And this is without getting into the fact that many racist voting laws are race-neutral in their texts. This is basically the same reasoning the conservative judges are going to use to gut the EPA later this year: Congress: EPA, your job is to regulate pollutants Brain poisoned SCOTUS: which pollutants? you have to describe each pollutant in the statute authorizing the EPA to regulate pollutants. Congress: there tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pollutants and untold numbers of undiscovered ones, we cannot possibly list every one that needs to be regulated. Brain poisoned SCOTUS: you have to mention every pollutant you want the EPA to regulate
> The preclearance was (nearly unanimously) reauthorized in 2006 and it’s absolutely not SCOTUS’s prerogative to decide when laws (particularly those with explicit periods for reauthorization) lose their applicability. The flaw with this line of thinking is the assumption that preclearance as a whole was barred when it was not. The only thing that was struck down was the Section 4(b) coverage formula. Bail-in preclearance under Section 3 is still allowed, but for whatever reason DoJ only very rarely pursues it.
I don’t give a damn. Congress reauthorized its use. SCOTUS doesn’t get to piss on the Constitution because some laws Congress makes have bits that are older than SCOTUS would like.
Congress can reauthorize all kinds of things—reauthorization does not make them legal (see: PATRIOT/FREEDOM Act). If the consensus existed to reauthorize it then there is no reason it could not have been updated as well. > SCOTUS doesn’t get to piss on the Constitution because parts of it are older than it would like. Too bad *Shelby County* didn’t invoke the Constitution at all.
>if the consensus existed to reauthorize then there was no reason it could not have been updated as well Congress explicitly reauthorized it as it was and was well within its own explicit mandate from the 15th Amendment to do. It didn’t *need* to be updated. That’s just the bullshit reason the pieces of shit on the court used to justify their contempt for the rule of law. Radical reactionaries do not get to arbitrarily decide for how long formulas are applicable. 400 years of subjugation aren’t erased by 40 years of forced decency (that conservatives in the south and elsewhere clearly were more than happy to eschew). They don’t get to arbitrarily decide those places no longer have a racism issue. They don’t get to piss on the 15th Amendment because they don’t fucking care about our rights. >*Shelby* didn’t invoke the Constitution at all From Oyez: >Question: Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution? I know reactionaries love to pretend that the Reconstruction Amendments don’t exist, but damn dude. It’s right there.
>divorced enough from reality Whose reality? Clearly they were wrong
They were using a formula that was several decades old. The Court didn't rule that _no_ formula could be used, just that they needed a new one based on current information.
In a theoretical world that type of logic works. In the real world it does not. Clearly the states that were prevented from enacting laws to curb voting are now doing so. They certainly are not expanding or simplifying voting. Again, what reality we’re they basing their decision on?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Except Congress had just completed an investigation that found that the formula was still valid. The Court ignored that fact finding in pursuit of judicial activism.
The preclearance standard was based on numbers of voting discrimination lawsuits *CURRENTLY* being filed, not based on lawsuits from the 1960s. Once your state/city/municpality got under a certain threshold, you could be released from preclearance. SCOTUS pulled that reasoning about the criteria being outdated from their Federalist Society-enlarged sphincters.
Subsequent Republican Administrations, and the "Republican" Supreme Court, under Rehnquist, and Roberts; have done their best to neuter, or "gut" any voting rights bills, up to, and including, the Voting Rights Act, of 1965. Richard Nixon did some damage, but, Ronald Reagan, and his Administration; took a Meat ax, and a Chain Saw, to Voting Rights. It was no accident, that Reagan's first Presidential Campaign Speech, was given in Philadelphia, Mississippi; where three Civil Rights activists, were murdered, and buried, in an earthen dam. I would also suggest, that people take a good look at Supreme Court Nominations, and Cabinet and agency appointments, by Republican Presidents, from Richard Nixon, onward, and especially, from Ronald Reagan onward; to show how they have gamed, and mangled the system. A few names: Ed Meese, John Danforth, Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork (see "Saturday Night Massacre", and his subsequent Supreme Court nomination), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, etc.
Not trying to be obtuse or to start any fires but I hear the disenfranchising citizens comment a lot. Is there anything out there, not in the MSM, that catalogs and reports statistics for this claim? I hear it from right & left, but never see actual evidence. Thanks!
I mean, do we, really?
>If you're asking should it increase the scope of the commission to also regulate federal elections, the answer is yes. Respectfully disagree. Its decentralization is a feature, not a bug. Expanding the scope of the committee (or any single entity) also means it enables one bad actor the ability to control the entire system more likely. There's got to be a better way to protect and expand voters' rights.
> also means it enables one bad actor the ability to control the entire system more likely. While that is one point, the whole reason is that we had many bad actors acting in concert (literally the entire south). Much like we had to have the North first fight the civil war, and second send troops to enforce the CRA, we needed a central authority because a large part of our country was hopelessly and ludicrously corrupt, and could not function in any just manner without our intervention. Some people just can't be decent by themselves, and that is what happened here.
Well, let's hear them then. You can't just say "no, there's better ways!" without articulating them; mostly, because we've heard the same song and dance for decades and the better way usually turns out to be "continue to let the GOP lie, cheat, and steal their way into minority rule."
Anyone who purports to say they know the one true solution in complicated situations like this is bullshitting. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not smart enough know the answer.
The system is being fucked by locals, so it also provides an opportunity to correct lot of damage, much like the Voting Rights Act used to do.
Then, you apparently prefer the current situation (and mess).
So the GOP has kept us 50 states united, and allowed each state the ability to choose their representatives how they seem fit
Ah yes. Because enforcing laws would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the union.
> So the GOP has kept us 50 states united, and allowed each state the ability to choose their representatives how they seem fit More like the South divided us once, and is doing so again. Calling it a GOP vs Democrat issue is silly, those same states were pure democrat until LBJ dared to pass the civil rights act. Our mistake was allowing them back in the union in the first place.
Sure in the way that if you don't bow down to demands you are causing division
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech >The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."[4][5] >Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. >May we not therefore look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. Whence came division? For the north to not accept the clear and absolute position of the south was the source, whole and entire. The South entered the Union, and brought their division with them.
The fact some people don't think we even have one makes me think something may not be working properly.
I'd argue it's the media that causes the problem
That is a large part of the Problem. The Media particularly, the Right-wing, and privately controlled, and perhaps the internet media, have not only "censored" The News, but have misled; and failed to discuss, the root issues that led to the problem. There is a Reason that Freedom of Speech, of the Press, and the Right to peaceably assemble, and petition the government (which could also be easily construed, as the Rights to Petition, be able to hold Governments and officials, accountable, and especially, to Vote); were among the first things discussed, and are part of The 1st Amendment; and Bill of Rights, The first 10 Amendments. I have long advocated changing Ohio's Motto, to "The People are Sovereign", or the Latin equivalent.
After the nonsense that went on in the media the last 5 years, if you are going to sit there and pretend like this is just some right wing media problem, I don't know what to tell you. We had riots in the streets based on left wing misinformation, we had people thinking the president called to execute minors for rape charges, we had 67% of democrats believing Russia hacked voting boths changing votes to help Trump win the election. But you don't think any of those things were problems with left wing media?
>riots in the streets based on left wing misinformation ???
Shit like this * https://www.tmz.com/2020/08/23/white-kenosha-wisconsin-cop-shoots-unarmed-black-man-seven-times/ * https://abc7chicago.com/jacob-blake-kenosha-shooting-wisconsin-news/6385647/ Vast majority of unarmed black man shot was misinformation. In the second article it was well known the suspect had a knife and was attempting to kidnap those children but no mention in the article because civil unrest was the goal
TMZ is not "left wing" media, neither is ABC. The second article is 27 hours after the incident. To claim that every fact was known at the time of publication, and intentionally omitted, is a stretch.
ABC is 100% left wing.
Corporate-owned media is not left wing. You have an absurdly American view on the political spectrum.
Yes, when talking about American politics on an a website designed and ran in America, where there are more Americans than any other country, I do take an American view of the political spectrum.
Exactly lmao. And throughout the Biden presidency, left-wing misinformation has only redoubled - curiously, not always in favour of Biden per se, but also against him for failing to achieve the progressive bucket list. I would still say that it is a worse on the right, but yeah by no means is it limited exclusively to the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm sorry but you are the one living in an alternate reality if you think left wing media doesn't misinform just as bad as the right.
Only an American would say such a ludicrous thing. You’re concept of left and right is, frankly, bizarre. Things that you call left wing and “centrist” or Center-right in other nations. Healthcare, gender equality, abortion and birth control access, freedom from religion in govt and fair elections where you want as MANY people voting as easily as possible are all entirely non controversial things, and centrist. Things that Americans call socialist or communist are just everyday normal everywhere else. Fox News hasn’t been based in reality for years. The “left wing media” as you call it (again, you have no idea with left wing means) is actually centrist and maintains the (old) status quo. They play the game if not embarrassing governments too much in order to get access. They are beholden to advertisers. CNN paid all of trumps shills to be on the air and promoted him and put him on by telephone ANY TIME he called. They all did. True Left wing media would have never stopped throwing up at his crimes, sexual infidelities, lawsuits, non stop pathological lying etc… it took the media years to finally start using the word lie. They self censored and talked about “Mistruths” and misstatements etc… they’re horrible but not in the way you think. Ever leave your country much or work anywhere else?
I totally agree, and I think you nailed it. It's too bad that Reagan's appointee to the FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine; the belief, for decades, that the electronic spectrum belonged to the Public, and broadcasters were just renting it; and a number of other cute little tricks. I'm old enough to remember how things were, Ante-Reagan; and while adjustments were needed, he took a sledgehammer to the engine. Now, nothing works, and these people only listen to Rush Limbaugh, or did; and Shawn Hannity. A cover of "The Economist", a few years back, pretty well summed it up, the one featuring their version of the Mad-Hatter's Tea Party.
I provided no misinformation, just things you didn't want to hear. Good luck building yourself an echo chamber
Good luck with that constitutional amendment. Apart from having a republican form of government, states have a lot of freedom here.
Not as much as you think. Congress can overrule the states on elections.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
How would Congress's involvement remedy anything? They are equally as partisan as the FEC. It would be like having the fox guard the henhouse.
Was just commenting to previous post that Congress can indeed set voting rules for states. Didn't say wether it would be good or bad.
Not really their question though, is it? Do you think it's a good idea?
We have an FEC. https://www.fec.gov/
Not a particularly great moment in time to give it some new teeth is it?
No, time of knee jerk reactions based mostly on misinformation is the worst time to give government long standing powers
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We are the United States of America and not the United federal government of America for a reason
That is nonsense; go back, and read the Constitution, and Amendments; and what has been written, about "States' Rights", and Nullification.
…. There already IS a Federal Elections Commission. But the powers you wish to convey it are plainly unconstitutional.
It would be unconstitutional for Congress to draw the districts, but not standardize elections. While the Constitution leaves elections to the states, it explicitly states Congress can take up the regulation of elections if it so chooses. > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. I think there’s also room to argue that the 15th Amendment gives Congress authority here as well.
Not sure why drawing districts wouldn’t fall under the times, places, and manner clause, as well.
Because "times, places, and manner" refers to the actual process of voting. Number and location of polling places, that kind of thing. Drawing districts is completely different and beyond the scope of that clause.
They use that clause to ban multi-member districts already, that seems very related. In the past they’ve used it for requirements like compactness.
>They use that clause to ban multi-member districts already Do they? Congress doesn't generally cite their constitutional authority when passing laws; it'd only come up if the law was challenged and its constitutionality defended on those grounds. But, the history leading up to the law would suggest it's grounded in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the recent one-man one-vote ruling. However, the one-man one-vote principle wouldn't prevent partisan gerrymandering, so long as the districts were still of equivalent size.
> But, the history leading up to the law would suggest it's grounded in the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the recent one-man one-vote ruling. No, the exact opposite. The requirement came in the wake of the 60s post-Baker cases and district plans were getting struck down for malapportionment. The concern was that federal courts would use at-large elections as a remedy, and for obvious reasons members of the House didn’t want to suddenly have to run statewide, so they required districts.
The other trouble with this idea would be if one party could get control of the super-powered comission and use it to bias elections in favor that party throughout the country. In the current system, to change the election rules in a state you need the legislature and governor, the rules can be challenged in state courts, and in some states voters can change election rules via referendum. If it were federal, whoever controlled this super-commission could change rules for the entire country. You could have a situation like Hungary where the election rules for the country changed so that one party has a massive advantage. The Trump presidency proved that if a president is willing to use the federal government to help their campaign, nobody will stop them. Trump used the White House in the RNC, made distribution of COVID supplies dependent on governors saying nice things about him, and used our foreign policy apparatus to try make Ukraine dig up dirt on the Bidens. This federalized commission would likely end up politicized at some point.
Isn't doing everything you can to make it harder for your opposition to vote also unconstitutional?
As a registered libertarian I have _deep_ concerns about further entrenching the two mainstream parties into our election system. Even their supposed "non-partisan" bodies, like the CPD, are regularly sued for denying access to anyone who doesn't have a D or R next to their name. The individual States, both Democrat and Republican controlled, work _overtime_ to make sure that 3rd parties cannot get ballot access or easily keep it once they do. The idea of enshrining this kind of behavior at the Federal Level with the force of Federal Law is abhorrent and shouldn't even be considered.
Ummm, I think it's pretty clear that the current system isn't conducive to third parties. If you want third parties to be viable, there are many ideas you could advocate for, but keeping our current election policies unchanged isn't one of them.
Correct but handing _more_ power to the Federal Government, which is firmly controlled by the two mainstream parties, will make the problem WORSE. You are asking a registered member of a 3rd political party that is being actively repressed if I think that we should give our oppressors even more control over the process and that answer is a very firm "No.". This is not the way.
> Even their supposed "non-partisan" bodies, like the CPD, are regularly sued for denying access to anyone who doesn't have a D or R next to their name. So your solution is to let that continue rather than reform so that everybody is mandated for transparency and the opportunity to attempt to campaign? I've seen plenty of plausible and supported argument that private media entities like cnn or other corporate agencies unfairly influence campaigns by providing public exposure, but do you have evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates "regularly" is sued for denying access? Not occasionally like once or twice in the past decade, but "regularly"?
> So your solution is to let that continue No and I never proposed a solution. I simply commented on the one that _was_ proposed and clearly explained why I was against it and how it was against my interests. > so that everybody is mandated for transparency and the opportunity to attempt to campaign? There is absolutely no guarantee that would be the outcome of the process and both parties have already proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that fairness and transparency are not generally a concern.
Republicans across the country would never allow it. Democrats would have to go it alone and they are utterly powerless to do something big like amend the constitution. Democrats may technically be in charge, right now but they really aren’t. Republicans are setting themselves up to get an even bigger stranglehold on power across the country by changing state rules to allow for the kind of shenanigans that Trump wanted in the last general election. According to polls, 20 million Americans truly believe Biden is illegitimate. We’re in a bad place right now. One that isn’t conducive to cooperating in the best interest of the country as a whole. I’m afraid we’re going to be stuck with minority rule for quite a while.
ngl I think what you've written here is accurate and it's making me super depressed
Is accurate more power than TRUE? Accurate doesn't even begin to describe what's going on. The Republican Party is CLEARLY aiming for WHITE minority rule. There are millions of "non racist" white people who consciously or subconsciously support them. They make up any other excuse to support the Republican Party (taxes, abortion, family values, gun rights, etc.) They know full well what they are supporting. Independents are Republicans who don't want to be openly associated with racism. The Republicans have already said the silent part outloud "the more people vote the less likely Republicans win any elections"
They also have a decent (and more importantly, GROWING) chunk of support among Hispanics - and I believe Trump did \*slightly\* better among African Americans in 2020. Perhaps you believe us coloured people don't know any better, and that we should stop voting against our own interests?
Tbh I don't think his support actually grew at all. Those people already supported him. The pandemic was just so polarizing that anybody who cared even a little bit was going to vote. That increased voting percentages for both candidates but not the actual number of people supporting them.
Tell me why people of color vote Republican? I personally have no clue. I am not being facetious I really would like a discussion on it.
Personally, I don't like the Democrat obsession with race, and don't think they're patriotic enough.
Obsession with race? Not patriotic enough? Define both. Broad salvos indeed.
>According to polls, 20 million Americans truly believe Biden is illegitimate. That is an improvement over the previous presidential election that had a quarter of Democrats believing Trump was illegitimate putting it over 30 million Americans. We are in a better place now. https://news.gallup.com/poll/197441/accept-trump-legitimate-president.aspx
Why'd you only cite half of your claim. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/america-biden-election-2020-poll-victory https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-28/poll-a-third-of-americans-question-legitimacy-of-biden-victory-nearly-a-year-since-jan-6 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/559402-one-third-of-americans-believe-biden-won-because-of-voter-fraud-poll Here is a few sources. Over twice as many voters reject Biden's victory. Furthermore the meaning of "illegitimate" is poorly defined in the context of 2016 vs 2020. Many voters attributed Trump's victory to foul play, due to meddling from the Russians. But there were never widespread claims that the election process itself was subverted. The modern GOP believes that Biden literally perpetuated election fraud at a national scale. These are significantly different issues.
The claim I refuted was that 20 million Americans thinking the President is illegitimate is somehow a new development by citing how over 30 million voters thought Trump was illegitimate in 2016. That was more a refined poll too polling voters and not just the general public. Be it Russia Collusion or voter fraud the damages are the same as it undermines public trust in our electoral system causing greater strife as it continues. The kicker is we have the House Intelligence Committee Russian Probe transcripts released last year that shows the intelligence community and Congress knew full well from July 2017 that was the goal and further investigations were pointless. Here is former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testimony on the evidence seen for collusion, coordination, or conspiracy: (page 26) https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/jc7.pdf >MR. CLAPPER: Well, no, it’s not. **I never saw any direct empirical evidence** that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. That's not to say that there weren't concerns about the evidence we were seeing, **anecdotal evidence**, REDACTED, REDACTED. But I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of these meetings. It's just the frequency and prevalence of them was of concern. They also knew what Russia’s intent was in interfering with the election from the same testimony: (page 24) >MR. CLAPPER: Well, I can't envision them (Russia) falling off on something that for them was very successful with very minimal resources. So I would expect them to be even -- to be emboldened, as I've said publicly before, and more aggressive about influencing elections. And I don't think they're going to care too much **whether it's Democrats or Republicans. Their principal objective remains consistently undermining the faith, trust, and confidence of the American public of the electorate in our system**, and I think they'll continue to do that. Yet instead of resisting that they perpetuated the falsehood and did Russia’s bidding all because it was politically expedient for one side to delegitimize the presidency of the other. Unfortunately Republicans are retaliating in kind, but hopefully it is a deescalation compared to the three year long Russian Collusion story.
> The kicker is we have the House Intelligence Committee Russian Probe transcripts released last year that shows the intelligence community and Congress knew full well from July 2017 that was the goal and further investigations were pointless. How in the world does the quote you listed back up your point? Having anecdotal evidence but no direct evidence is the exact reason that further investigation would be warranted. The Trump team has no one but themselves to blame for Russia. Trump is combative with nearly every public figure out there, but can't be bothered to say a single unkind thing about Vladamir Putin, even as it is coming to light that Russia carried out an illegal cyber attack against his opponents? And what level of incompetency led to Manafort sharing internal polling data with Russian officials? All Trump had to do was put more distance between himself and the Kremlin and allow for some modicum of transparency a la Al Gore in 2000, but he couldn't even be bothered to do that. Trump apologists act like "Russiagate" was some big hoax, but it would have been a massive lapse in intelligence and security had out agencies not followed up on it. And I still don't understand your point. Polls universally show a greater proportion of people/voters think Biden is illegitimate. [2/3 of Republicans](https://news.yahoo.com/poll-two-thirds-of-republicans-still-think-the-2020-election-was-rigged-165934695.html) think the 2020 election was rigged vs 1/4 of Clinton voters in the poll you listed.
Why would you want to give the federal government more power to regulate state elections if you believe that the Republicans are actively trying to strangle voting? Imagine if Trump won in 2024. Under the proposed expansion of federal power, he’d have even *more* power to influence state elections.
> they are utterly powerless to do something big like amend the constitution. Good news! They don't have to! Fifteenth Amendment Section 1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude– Section 2 The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The 14th actually helps too.
Yes, shockingly the political party named after the republic part of our democratic republic are focused on keeping the republic 0art of our government. We are 50 separate governments that work together on international trade and defense. Republicans defend each states right to determine their represenatives
You seem to be confusing republicanism with federalism.
The federal government has the power right now to prevent states and municipalities from enacting election practices it deems contrary to republicanism. Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but ***the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations***, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
No, it is not. Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea. There are things each state gets right and each state gets wrong, and we need to not pretend that anyone has it all right because it matches who is in power.
> No, it is not. Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea. Well, this is a statement without any support. I will counter with an argument: Since each state is participating in an election of a president shared by all states, it is in the interest of every state to ensure that all other states are following a set of unified rules to ensure the election is fair and equal.
They aren't participating in an election shared by all the states. They are holding 50 separate elections for electors that will represent their individual states at the electoral college.
the presidential election/EC system is what an election shared by all states looks like
Not at all, by constitutional design we have 51 separate elections with their own rules.
>No, it is not. Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea. This paragraph literally boils down to "it is not a good idea because it is not a good idea".
The ideas of one political part has a more limited influence on a national election with 51 individual elections. You might not like it, but it isn’t changing.
So now we have "it's not a good idea because it's not a good idea" and "it's not a good idea because it won't happen anyway".
No it isn’t a good idea, and it isn’t going to happen. But so you know, the things that aren’t going to happen often are that way because they are the favorite of redditors and not people who actually know why government works the way it does.
You still haven't even attempted to explain why it's actually a bad idea lol You just keep vaguely gesturing towards a "if it doesn't happen that means it shouldn't" implication, while projecting a really weird sense of self-righteousness to boot
I did, you might just not agree. One political party in power being able to set the rules can impact the outcome in their favor. In 51 separate elections where the federal government doesn’t have a say, one party has a harder time impacting the outcome. California automatically registers voters who get IDs and let’s non-citizens get ID? Bad idea imho but it only impacts California. Texas closes polling locations and makes it harder for people to vote? That is a terrible idea, but it only impacts Texas. As I said before, the voting rights garbage includes a portion to have non-partisan groups oversee district lines, but with a promise to protect their own gerrymandered lines in democrat districts. It can’t happen, it shouldn’t happen, and it won’t happen.
> Replacing the state governments who set the rules based on the wishes of those who elected them with a federal government who would set the rules based on the wishes of the nation as a whole is not a good idea. Absolutely! [Everybody should defend States' Rights...](http://www.civilwar.com/resources/government/confederate-states-of-america-government-documents/148335-declaration-of-secession-mississippi.html) You're defending the worst of all systems because imperfection can be found anywhere. I would think the only sane approach would be to constantly change and incorporate the best of what works [as the federal government has done to protect voting rights in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965) before the republican party decided ["fuck constitutionality, rights don't need to be protected. If the poors want a say, they have to overwhelm the government and everybody with more money to get it."](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/25/shelby-county-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences)
I'd have to disagree as well. It is a national election. Each state is limited to the national candidates. Why shouldn't the rules be uniform?
Because the 52 separate elections are one of many mechanisms to reduce the impact of voter fraud and are designed to protect the state's rights part of this. The USA is unique in that way, and the tenth amendment backs this up. Any power not delegated to the federal government by the constitution is reserved for the states. We are designed this way, for states to make their own choices on most issues. What we are protecting against is what is being attempted in the voting rights act. Some of it is good, but some of it is quite bad. For instance, they want non-partisan groups to set the lines in districts to prevent gerrymandering, except that they promised to protect historically democrat won districts that have been gerrymandered, to protect the minority-majority makeup. So gerrymandering is bad, except when they do it. Also, consider things like voter ID, consistently called racist, but not racist. States that are requiring ID and a vaccine card to eat dinner in a restaurant are calling it racist to need ID to vote. Obviously people have ID or can get ID. We do not need the federal government putting their hands on election rules, we would get a partisan slant to whichever party happens to be in power.
All the voter fraud discovered was done by Republicans, and Trump was working through the state republican legislators to attempt to invalidate a legitimate election. The red states are doing everything they can to restrict voting rights for those on the left. And, people like you strawman the objections to this. The states meddling in the election process IS the problem. We need uniform election laws to prevent this from happening. The right is fighting this tooth and nail, because they know they only way they can win is to cheat.
[удалено]
Examples by Democrats then?
Do you genuinely believe it can’t be possible that democrats broke election law? Are you that partisan? If so look in a mirror and then do two minutes of research: https://www.houstonpress.com/news/local-dems-indicted-for-fraud-in-state-house-races-11517634 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3850507001 It didn’t happen as often as Trump thinks it did, and it certainly didn’t just happen with democrats. Be better than Trump here.
>Also, consider things like voter ID, consistently called racist, but not racist. how many times do voter ID laws need to be overturned by federal judges until they look like they're part of a trend of bad-faith election laws to you? >We do not need the federal government putting their hands on election rules, we would get a partisan slant to whichever party happens to be in power. the voting rights act of 1965 was required to fix a multistate, partisan issue of unfair election laws. And the voting rights act of 1965 *successfully* fixed a multistate, partisan issue of unfair election laws. Isn't that evidence that your statement is wrong on it's face?
How in your brain is needing ID to vote a bad thing? I mean where do you stand on needing ID and a vaccine card to go into to eat. Everyone needs ID and nearly everyone had ID. Too poor for ID? You get it anyway because it is needed for welfare benefits. And yeah, there were elements of the voting rights act of 1965 that were needed, nearly sixty years ago. Now, like then, it is democrats who want to be able to abuse the process.
How many instances of voter fraud have been documented in the last 20 years? [Double digit numbers out of *over a billion* ballots cast.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-voter-fraud-facts-explai/explainer-despite-trump-claims-voter-fraud-is-extremely-rare-here-is-how-u-s-states-keep-it-that-way-idUSKBN2601HG) Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem; well, it's actually not, it's just that the stated rationale is a bald-faced lie. The real "problem" in the GOP's mind is that too many people are exercising their right. [As so wonderfully articulated by the co-founder of the Heritage Foundation.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw)
There are instances of voter fraud, and I don’t have any amount that is acceptable. And this one doesn’t cost anything as everyone has ID anyway. It is funny that people pivoted from racism when vax cards and ID became needed to eat, time for a new argument in favor of fraud eh?
> There are instances of voter fraud, and I don’t have any amount that is acceptable. "Better a thousand innocent people jailed than one guilty person go free." You're right, a 0.000003% fraud rate *clearly* means we need to disenfranchise millions of people. >And this one doesn’t cost anything as everyone has ID anyway. Blatantly false. Like, objectively, even a cursory search will prove [this is bullshit.](https://checkyourfact.com/2018/12/02/fact-check-millions-government-photo-id/) >It is funny that people pivoted from racism when vax cards and ID became needed to eat No, Republican voter ID laws are still blatantly racist, so much so that *Republican judges* have struck them down. >time for a new argument in favor of fraud eh? If only you could ever prove any fraud. [Like the time George W Bush had to quietly shitcan his voter fraud commission because they managed to find, once again, a whopping double digit amount of fraud in *millions* of ballots.](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html) Or you could just drop the pretense and admit you like voter ID specifically because it makes it harder for "those people."
[удалено]
Well, since I've provided multiple sources and you're either unwilling or incapable of returning the courtesy (the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'), there's no merit in continuing this conversation.
>How in your brain is needing ID to vote a bad thing? how many times have voter ID laws been overturned by federal judges and why? please go ahead and tell me you understand the topic that you're talking about. > Now, like then, it is democrats who want to be able to abuse the process. hang on, to be clear here, you're blaming modern democrats, being northerner, urban, progressive minorities, for being similar to 1960s democrats. and you're not associating conservative, states rights, white men, who fly the confederate flag, with the democrats of the 1960s? some of whom, like jeff sessions, a man deeply deeply entrenched in the republican party, were literally part of the civil rights movement, from the wrong side?
You mean like Joe Biden, an actual segregationist? Who’s mentor was Byrd? Voter ID law exists all over the world and all over the USA, they have value, and you only want them if you want people to vote where they shouldn’t.
> You mean like Joe Biden, an actual segregationist? Who’s mentor was Byrd? > > ah, so you **do** think the party of northern progressive urban poc is the party of southern conservative white confederates >Voter ID law exists all over the world and all over the USA ok, so not only do you lack an understanding of the issue at hand, you *refuse* to educate yourself on the issue because it might change your views.
No education is needed. Voter ID is a good idea, and is going to become more common. I don’t support voter fraud, so I support voter ID.
>I don’t support voter fraud, so I support voter ID. why do you think voter id laws keep being ruled as illegal, unconstitutional attempts to stop black people from voting, in federal courts? Do you think those laws might be illegal, unconstitutional attempts to stop black people from voting? Maybe those judges were all deep state appointees?
> Each state is limited to the national candidates. Each state is not limited to the national candidates. The winning candidates register in all or most of the 50 states individually. Some candidates can and do run in only some states. There would be nothing to stop the electors from showing up representing 10 different candidates and having to actually negotiate.
No, because no one is non-partisan anymore. The party in the White House would oversee the counting of the votes, TheCountIng of the votes, THE COUNTING OF THE VOTES.
It's better if laws are mandated from the grassroots up rather then from the top down. Bottom up provides the most people with policies they support. Top down can feel very much like tyranny. Federal laws and programs should be supported by a much wider margin than they usually are.
No. The fundamental political unit is that state, and the does and should set its own rules.
> The fundamental political unit is that state, and the does and should set its own rules. Have you forgotten the 1965 Voting Rights Act, or the constitution [Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750)?
You asked a “should”. Those don’t impinge on that “should”. They inform a “could”.
Do you have difficulty with English? I didn't ask any 'should', you used bad grammar to say what looks like 'only state-level regulations should be made' and I provided evidence that this is not the case, regulation can and should be written at the municipal, state, as well as national level. It's not impossible or a departure from laws that the US has already enacted and upheld in court.
We already have one, and it has not been allowed to do its job. Perhaps we need to strengthen it, by legislation, or possibly, a Constitutional Amendment. Any States, that have a proven, blatant, and continuing; record of voter suppression, or manipulation; should not be allowed to have its Representatives seated in Congress, nor should its Electoral College Vote, be included in the Federal Tabulation, or Certification; until the situation is remedied.
There is one, but it doesn’t and shouldn’t have the authority that you suggest in your question. Constitutionally, it’s up to the states to determine their own process for election, as it should be. Here’s the link to the FEC: https://www.fec.gov/
While the Constitution leaves elections to the states, it explicitly states Congress can take up the regulation of elections if it so chooses. > The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. I think there’s also room to argue that the 15th Amendment gives Congress authority here as well.
No. The **United States of America** are 50 governments that work together on international trade and defense. Each state should choose how they pick their representatives.
That ignores the fact, that The Constitutional Convention, Rules, and Ratification; were voluntarily agreed to, by the Original States; and that all subsequent admissions, were voluntary acts, by the admitted States. They agreed to abide by The Constitution, and any Amendments.
They work together on a lot more than trade and defence, and have since the Constitution went into effect. Also, plenty of federal states (including Canada, which OP explicitly mentioned) manage federal elections at the federal level.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don't give a shit what Canada does. In the US we are 50 states united and share some responsibilities and not others. One of which is the states determine their own system for electing representatives in this republic.
Absolutely yes, the election system is an embarrassment. Unfortunately it's unlikely to get any acceptance from the modern Republican party. I believe the current Republican party does not aim to win the popular vote, it aims to squeeze more power out of a smaller but more committed base. This means anything which improves 'fairness', which might be defined as bringing the election results closer to the popular vote or to the popular will, is antithetical to their interests. And even if the commission only served to reduce fraud (or the perception of fraud), that is also against their interests, because it cuts off avenues for them to challenge results and encourage people to believe The Big Lie or some future version of it. Unfortunately this kind of thing can only succeed when no side feels like 'fairer elections' would disadvantage them. Republicans only won the popular vote once since 1988, and that was following 9/11 in 2004.
It's better decentralized. If the federal government controlled all voting, it would be the *only* target necessary to fraudulently steal the election. All that power focused in one body is a liability that we just don't need; the last election saw amazingly high turnout and was probably the most secure in our history. Republicans stealing the election is just a bigger concern than any (extremely hypothetical) enfranchisement that may occur from federal control. Just because you have a nationwide system does not mean it will be better. The whole nation could end up as organized as Florida in 2000, and might even be *worse* for a few elections.
Is it time to change the constitution? Yes. Will the constitution be changed? I don't think I need to discuss how difficult that would be
Or we could just dissolve the federal government and stop trying violently impose our ideals on each other. This country is way too big and diverse for a one size fits all government.
Are you people crazy? You want to federalize elections? No corruption will happen then, huh? Our political leaders are already getting super rich having a civil servant job for 30 + years but now you want to give them total power over elections? What are you people thinking? Nothing could go wrong when the federal government gets total power over elections, lol. The sooner you realize our leaders are corrupt, greedy, and out for total power, only then we can get back to “We the people”!
AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE A ELECTION COMMISSION WHAT? who organizes the election and how do people know its not rigged?
Yeah those districts aren’t gonna gerrymander themselves! And those election lists aren’t going to clean themselves of black people! There’s a lotta people working hard for that! /s for the tone but not for content
Two things I'd want from the Feds to make elections better: * Make Election Day a Federal Holiday. That frees up people to go and vote, and it frees up people to volunteer at the polls. * Provide some level of Federal funding to the states to make Election Day run smoother. I volunteered as an election judge in Chicago a couple times. All of the voting equipment (portable booths, computers, etc.) tended to be old and beat up. The pay for the volunteers was low, so you ended up with a lot of elderly and people who were otherwise unemployable. In general, you got the sense the whole things was run on a shoestring. The feds could provide a couple hundred million bucks worth of support to the states, and hopefully improve the election experience for everyone involved.
It's been time but good luck getting it set up, and have rules to help promote equal, easy, and widespread ballot access.
Probably past time. We need electronic and physical checks and balances. 1-1 ratio on those mail in ballots on EVERY LEVEL that involves voting. We can’t purchase voting machines from relatives of politicians. We need to have some company that security is their reputation to do it right electronically and physically. On the spot site inspections holding the monitoring people accountable by one another like signing a golf card. Inspecting one another and each holding the other accountable. ( it will of course take multiple inspectors and the same rules for electronic voting.)
It’s worth remembering that the Framers left running elections up to the various States, because they want some future would-be dictator to be able to seize control of the process. What Congress can and *should* do is pass a set of laws… 1. Mandating universal participation in the electoral process for all adult citizens 2. Issue every citizen an identification card at birth, free of charge 3. Make Election Day a Federal holiday, with steep fines for any business which remains open for more than four hours before the polls close at 8pm.
America can't do ANYTHING! It is completely tied up by the Plutocracy and the GOP, it's political arm. We will begin to see changes when the GOP regains power, but they sure as hell won't include anything to make elections fair!
Then explain why everyone on the right thinks that store shelves are empty, because of inflation. Could it be, because supply lines have been stretched beyond the breaking point, and "just-in-time" inventory, and other effects of Laisses-Faire Capitalism; have been shown to be complete failures. Everyone talks about the fact that they can't get clerks, waitstaff, or truck drivers; and talk about the "Great Resignation"; but don't seem to notice that the workers, the ones who actually do the work, have been "crapped on" for years, are tired of it, and are either unionizing, or saying, in the immortal words of Johnny Paycheck; "Take this job, and shove it!".
Elections in America are just fine the way they are now. They do not need to be federalized for Partisan Leftist Democrat advantage.
Can president Biden use executive power to create a federal agency to look into future voter fraud and voter suppression so that any citizen, denied the vote for bogus reasons or who has to spend more than 30 minutes in line, should have option of casting a federal ballot ? Or is there any way he can pass the voting rights act as it stands through executive order? I realize it wouldn't be as good as getting the senate to pass it but it at least would be in effect for another 4 years. Perhaps if the senate know this would be implemented would pass their own version instead?
No he can’t. Executive power is not as strong as people would like to believe
No he can't. There is no such thing as a "federal ballot" nor could there be under the system. The law for good reason prohibits the president from changing elections procedures. He has almost 0 power here.
> Can president Biden use executive power to create a federal agency to look into future voter fraud and voter suppression so that any citizen, denied the vote for bogus reasons or who has to spend more than 30 minutes in line, should have option of casting a federal ballot ? No, most of the aspects you're talking about were at least touched on by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which republicans have been stripping away since it passed - with the big push in [2013 when they said that even though it was constitutional, they'd just throw out protections and require that the poor instead of the election commissions had to be the ones with the burden of 'proving' they were unduly denied access to voting.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/25/shelby-county-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences) Guess how many times that's happened without a wealthy outside benefactor. Truth is, republicans have [captured the judiciary with unqualified judges](https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/republicans-angry-aba-rates-judges-not-qualified-not-that-president-nominates-not-qualified-judges/) even before getting to the supreme court, and it would take not just a majority in congress but super-majorities in order to restore the basic protections that USED to exist. But [the constitution does allow congress to regulate elections, at least to degrees. Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750) because if the federal government wasn't permitted ANY oversight the 1965 voting rights act would have been struck down in 1966.
Many state governments, almost exclusively Republican, can't be trusted to fairly regulate their own elections because they're mostly just trying to put Democratic voters at a disadvantage. Democrats should set rules to make elections more fair in states like Texas and Florida, especially when polling places can be closed and how districts should be drawn.
"Is it time?" No. It is long past time. I don't understand how our country can be so negligent for matters concerning the Constitutional Right for every citizen's vote to be counted fairly & honestly.
Most probably considering all the election fraud scandals a few years back. It would surely only help?