Why don’t we have national rules/guidelines for at least national level elections?

November 03, 2020, 12:41 PM

You vote via X system on Y days. You provide one of these 2 or three types of recognized identification and you are provided with proof of your vote etc.

Why is it a hodgepodge of ways, lengths, fights over presenting ID etc. etc.

For local and state level, sure whatever have at it at the state level. But national elections??????

Always been a curiosity on my part.

Now I am not naive and I realize a big part of this is to lie, cheat and game the system. I mean we are talking about politicians here but taking that out of the equation shouldn’t we the people insist on a standardized system with standardized identification etc.. or is that just crazy talk?

November 03, 2020, 12:44 PM

Chris17404

Federalism. Each state can decide their desired method to determine which electors are sent to vote for President.

November 03, 2020, 12:45 PM

TXJIM

Under our system it's the states that elect the President through the electoral college. How those states decide to collect their votes is a state matter.

November 03, 2020, 12:48 PM

cslinger

I mean I do realize that and the Republic being what it is. I just feel it gives far too much leeway for errors as much as it does for fraud.

Just venting out loud.

And no I don’t want to see us go straight up pure Democracy.

November 03, 2020, 12:49 PM

konata88

I'm rather agnostic to process.

To me the problem is that the system is becoming increasingly corrupt to the point that voting really doesn't matter. There will be a day when voting is really just an illusion and the outcome is already predetermined by the corrupt.

The process generally isn't the problem, it's the corruption.

November 03, 2020, 12:51 PM

2BobTanner

^^^^^^^^^^

Article 1, Section 4; and Article 2, Section 1 of US Constitution, as amended.

November 03, 2020, 02:14 PM

RogueJSK

quote:
Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
Article 1, Section 4; and Article 2, Section 1 of US Constitution

Yep, the Constitution specifically grants states the power to decide things like manner of holding elections and how Electors are determined.

Even if it didn't, then there's still the 10th Amendment, which states that any power not granted to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the states. So even if the Constitution was mute on things like elections and Electors, it would still be left up to the states on how they wanted to do it.

November 03, 2020, 02:18 PM

flashguy

quote:
Originally posted by TXJIM:
Under our system it's the states that elect the President through the electoral college. How those states decide to collect their votes is a state matter.

And as a matter fact, a state doesn't even have to have a public vote on the President--the Electors can be chosen by the Legislature, for example. I don't think any state is set up that way right now, but it's possible.

flashguy

November 03, 2020, 02:20 PM

GWbiker

"Rules. We don't need no steekin' rules" - Democrat party creed.

November 03, 2020, 03:49 PM

bobtheelf

Because it's up to states to choose their electors in any way they want. They can do a lottery if the legislature decides to.

November 03, 2020, 04:41 PM

egregore

I wonder how this "compact" (electoral votes to go to the popular vote winner) between several states holds up under legal scrutiny. An individual state can, I suppose, but collusion between states?

If Trump does win the popular vote, it will suck to be these states. I hope so. Maybe they'll think twice about manipulating the Electoral College to engineer a specific outcome.

November 03, 2020, 04:44 PM

Dakor

What I want to know is which law enforcement agency is responsible for making sure that official party observers/auditors are allowed in the voting areas (like the disgrace that’s happening in Philly) and that makes certain no voter intimidation occurs? Local police, Staties, Feds?

November 03, 2020, 04:51 PM

jhe888

quote:
Originally posted by Chris17404:
Federalism. Each state can decide their desired method to determine which electors are sent to vote for President.

This cannot be said too many times. By design, the United States are meant to be more a collection of states than a centrally controlled nation. Most of the power, including the power to regulate voting and elections, remains in the states.

Please fight to keep the power in the states. Do you in Kentucky want to be governed by California or Florida? Do you in Massachusetts want to be governed by Texas or New York?

Federalism is where it is at, baby.

November 03, 2020, 05:37 PM

T-Boy

Adding to what some have already said, we are the United States of America, not the United People of America. Think of us as a club….a club with 50 members. The Members, not the individual voters, get to choose the next President and how they make that decision is up to each state, thus the mix of different methods in the various states. They get X number of votes (Electors). The genius of this structure is that the various candidates MUST address each state as an independent election and satisfy the voters needs that are characteristic to that state. They cannot ignore any state and the needs specific to that state. The alternative method, popular vote, would fundamentally change the strategy of the candidates and most experts agree that the candidates would focus on heavily populated areas of the country at the expense of the low population areas and states. This would essentially mean that states like Wyoming, Maine and Mississippi would get ignored.

The argument of “well if we had a popular election then XXX would have won” is irrelevant since, if the election were of the popular vote, the election campaigns would have been managed totally different. To these detractors I have to say…”you need to understand the game you are playing, evidently you don’t”.

November 03, 2020, 06:21 PM

flashguy

quote:
Originally posted by egregore:
I wonder how this "compact" (electoral votes to go to the popular vote winner) between several states holds up under legal scrutiny. An individual state can, I suppose, but collusion between states?

If Trump does win the popular vote, it will suck to be these states. I hope so. Maybe they'll think twice about manipulating the Electoral College to engineer a specific outcome.

My understanding is that the Compact does not go into effect until enough states to comprise 270 or more Electoral votes join it. I don't think that threshold has been reached. (And there is also a lawsuit against it, based on other provisions of the Constitution.)

flashguy

November 03, 2020, 07:15 PM

wrightd

quote:
Originally posted by konata88:
I'm rather agnostic to process.

To me the problem is that the system is becoming increasingly corrupt to the point that voting really doesn't matter. There will be a day when voting is really just an illusion and the outcome is already predetermined by the corrupt.

The process generally isn't the problem, it's the corruption.

Strong point about process vs corruption.

November 03, 2020, 11:47 PM

mk689

There is no such thing as a "national election" in the U.S. system. There are 50 state elections, each separate.

In fact, there is no requirement for vote at all for President. It is up to each individual state. A state's legislature could, if they wanted to, simply appoint a slate of citizens to vote for President and VP on behalf of the state.

It has, though, been customary since day one for the states to hold elections by the people for this purpose, so the precedent is very strong.

But, in the end, the only requirement is for the electors to cast their votes on the constitutionally appointed day.

November 04, 2020, 12:40 AM

corsair

quote:
Originally posted by T-Boy:
Adding to what some have already said, we are the United States of America, not the United People of America. Think of us as a club….a club with 50 members. The Members, not the individual voters, get to choose the next President and how they make that decision is up to each state, thus the mix of different methods in the various states. They get X number of votes (Electors). The genius of this structure is that the various candidates MUST address each state as an independent election and satisfy the voters needs that are characteristic to that state. They cannot ignore any state and the needs specific to that state. The alternative method, popular vote, would fundamentally change the strategy of the candidates and most experts agree that the candidates would focus on heavily populated areas of the country at the expense of the low population areas and states. This would essentially mean that states like Wyoming, Maine and Mississippi would get ignored.

The argument of “well if we had a popular election then XXX would have won” is irrelevant since, if the election were of the popular vote, the election campaigns would have been managed totally different. To these detractors I have to say…”you need to understand the game you are playing, evidently you don’t”.

Very well said.

Its remarkable the number of people after 2016, who all of a sudden became quite interested in US civics, never mind they slept through the one semester class in senior year of HS along with giving a half-hearted effort at history class. Nope, all these people came out of the woodwork with their opinion of 'how it should be' regarding the electoral college, voting, representation and understanding how this country's government is structured and operates.