2 ms·

This is very much an outsider with no skin in the game making suggestions... Considering that the US is a federation, would it not make sense for the federal g

This is very much an outsider with no skin in the game making suggestions... Considering that the US is a federation, would it not make sense for the federal government to run local elections as a service? This is on the back of another idea that has been floated around for elections in regions where "free and fair" is an aspirational goal. I stead of an international body certifying elections, it might be better to have a 3rd party run the elections, and make all the implementation decisions. ..just to keep a separation of powers between election system and candidates running within that system. Similarly, as referendums are increasingly important in many European locales... we need a more nonpolitical body empowered to finalize the wording. A president perhaps, for "westminster-like" systems.

smileysteve 8y ago
> Considering that the US is a federation > fed·er·a·tion > a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs. Your conclusion from "Federation" seems off; importantly, this upcoming election is solely for internal affairs (Governor, SOS). Beyond that, it's important to note that each state can have their own way to assign electoral votes for presidential elections, some are winner take all, a few split on percentages.
wool_gather 8y ago
The federal system here is fairly weak, by design -- and the ideology of that weakness is still prevalent. Making this shift would probably require more arm-twisting and political capital than the federal government can apply even when federalists are in power. There's a latent suspicion of the federal government in the electorate here that is usually pretty easily activated. I'm also not sure I see the advantage to centralizing this. It's a case of "many hands make light work". There's a lot to do to conduct an election. Breaking the task among lots of basically autonomous units, made up of local individuals instead of some faceless Washington bureaucrats (see, there's that latent suspicion ;) gives some resilience -- and helps voters feel connected to the process. Also worth noting that although the structures of the various intra-state governments are broadly similar, there's plenty of differences that would be a pain in the neck for a federal administration.

smileysteve 8y ago

> Considering that the US is a federation > fed·er·a·tion > a group of states with a central government but independence in internal affairs. Your conclusion from "Federation" seems off; importantly, this upcoming election is solely for internal affairs (Governor, SOS). Beyond that, it's important to note that each state can have their own way to assign electoral votes for presidential elections, some are winner take all, a few split on percentages.

wool_gather 8y ago

The federal system here is fairly weak, by design -- and the ideology of that weakness is still prevalent. Making this shift would probably require more arm-twisting and political capital than the federal government can apply even when federalists are in power. There's a latent suspicion of the federal government in the electorate here that is usually pretty easily activated. I'm also not sure I see the advantage to centralizing this. It's a case of "many hands make light work". There's a lot to do to conduct an election. Breaking the task among lots of basically autonomous units, made up of local individuals instead of some faceless Washington bureaucrats (see, there's that latent suspicion ;) gives some resilience -- and helps voters feel connected to the process. Also worth noting that although the structures of the various intra-state governments are broadly similar, there's plenty of differences that would be a pain in the neck for a federal administration.