4 ms·
It doesn’t need to be a power-grab (“We’re taking over the election to make sure it’s done right”). In all likelihood it would be some sort of funding incentive
by Uehreka 7y ago
It doesn’t need to be a power-grab (“We’re taking over the election to make sure it’s done right”). In all likelihood it would be some sort of funding incentive (“If you resolve to do vote-by-mail, we’ll give you the money to hire people and buy equipment to do it, and even throw in some money for infrastructure as a cherry on top”).
- MiroF 7y agoAnd further, this is how the federal government governs in the vast majority of cases. Sure, it doesn't have the ability to directly mandate what states do, but it does have the carrot-and-stick.
- bobthepanda 7y agoThe problem with this approach is that it leaves a patchwork solution and still leaves the most disenfranchised out of the running, because ideology trumps free money. See: ACA Medicare expansion.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- arrosenberg 7y agoThat still fractures the ideologues and allows you to defeat them in detail. I would consider it a win if Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Iowa all adopted voter enfranchisement as a policy.
- a_wild_dandan 7y agoPerfect isn't the enemy of good. Let's use the patchwork solution on our journey to a better one. (As long as it's actually an improvement!)
- MiroF 7y agoNot always... I think you underestimate the extent to which this sort of approach underlies most federal government rule making. Consider the drinking age of 21 - that is a state-by-state law and yet somehow universal in the United States.
- tengbretson 7y agoI agree that this would be a safer, softer approach, but at the end of the day, fostering dependence is itself just another form of a power-grab.