Cipheron on 12/12/2020 at 15:36
They should be careful what they ask for, because if that actually went through then there would be a precedent that states need to abide by uniform election standards, and they'd f-ing hate that.
The USA needs anti-gerrymandering laws in place, universally, for a start. While things wouldn't instantly fix everything, it would get rid of a lot of "safe" seats meaning more competitive politics.
Nicker on 12/12/2020 at 17:17
Quote Posted by Cipheron
They should be careful what they ask for, because if that actually went through then there would be a precedent that states need to abide by uniform election standards, and they'd f-ing hate that.
The USA needs anti-gerrymandering laws in place, universally, for a start. While things wouldn't instantly fix everything, it would get rid of a lot of "safe" seats meaning more competitive politics.
As much as I am glad this States Rights issue is fouling T***p's coup bid, I think the USA does need to move to a single, national standard for all elections. Basically, if it's a right of all citizens, equally, it needs to be administered at the federal level. I know the State's Rights folks hate this but free and fair elections is not a matter of State indulgence, it is a fundamental right of all Americans.
Pyrian on 12/12/2020 at 18:15
Now's the time. We'll just tell the Trumpets that it's a voting rights law to prevent anything like 2020 from happening again.
Nicker on 12/12/2020 at 18:31
Or Fake News it that Obama is vehemently opposed to Universal Voting Rights.
heywood on 12/12/2020 at 19:36
Quote Posted by Nicker
As much as I am glad this States Rights issue is fouling T***p's coup bid, I think the USA does need to move to a single, national standard for all elections. Basically, if it's a right of all citizens, equally, it needs to be administered at the federal level. I know the State's Rights folks hate this but free and fair elections is not a matter of State indulgence, it is a fundamental right of all Americans.
You do not want federally administered elections. That would put the incumbent President in charge. Just think about what Trump could have done if he was in charge of administering this past election.
You don't need the federal government running the elections to make them free and fair, and there's no reason to think the federal government would do a better job of keeping them free and fair than the states do.
Nicker on 12/12/2020 at 19:49
A short, impassioned and succinct summary of the present situation...
[video=youtube;MUAq7q83Xew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAq7q83Xew[/video]
Nicker on 12/12/2020 at 20:38
Quote Posted by heywood
You do not want federally administered elections. That would put the incumbent President in charge. Just think about what Trump could have done if he was in charge of administering this past election.
You don't need the federal government running the elections to make them free and fair, and there's no reason to think the federal government would do a better job of keeping them free and fair than the states do.
Not necessarily. In Canada (as in other functioning democracies), we have independent bodies that administer all elections, for both candidates and voters. The sitting government has no role in administering the election once it has been called. That doesn't prevent criminal interference but it does make it more difficult and obvious.
The fact that T***P has poisoned the present process in the USA should not be a reason for the States NOT to seek better and more universal solutions. Again, if fair elections are an equal right of all US citizens, that right must be upheld federally.
heywood on 12/12/2020 at 20:43
Quote Posted by Nicker
A short, impassioned and succinct summary of the present situation...
[video=youtube;MUAq7q83Xew]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAq7q83Xew[/video]
So to punish a bunch of legislators who would thwart the results of a democratic election, he would thwart the results of a democratic election by not seating them?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
