3 ms·

This article, beyond being flamebait and inappropriate for HN, reflects a fundamentally poor understanding of the U.S. government. The comment about national el

This article, beyond being flamebait and inappropriate for HN, reflects a fundamentally poor understanding of the U.S. government. The comment about national elections, for example - the United States has zero national elections except for the meeting of the electoral college in December of presidential election years.

specialist 6y ago
re OC #2 No uniformity in national elections HAVA and Election Assistence Commission (EAC.gov) were very modest initial efforts to codify and normalize our elections. Do you object to HAVA and EAC.gov? Do you object to NIST creating standardized, uniform weights and measures? If you support NIST but oppose EAC, why? What's the functional, practical difference? re OC #3 No national election management body There's a lot of daylight between our current non-system and nationalized election administration. We don't even have a nationalized election observers, reporting on key metrics. Rhetorical question: How does one manage what one does not measure? "except for the meeting of the electoral college" That Foreign Policy did not advocate democratic reforms, like abolishing Electoral College, shows their restraint. The obvious reforms they did suggest are less controversial than standardized accounting rules (FASB's GAAP).
worker767424 6y ago
What's fun with the electoral college is the president and VP are voted for separately. Mike Pence got more votes than DJ Trump in 2016.
specialist 6y ago
Followup. Because I buried the lede. No legislative action is needed. Jurisdictions can normalize election administration. Just by comparing notes and adopting best practices. This is how it's always been. National associations and organizations have always done this. For instance, the national groups and local affiliates working on disability issues advocated for touchscreens and other ADA stuff. There would be immediate benefits to providing better resources for these efforts. Additionally, there'd be immediate benefits to creating a new study groups with the charter to normalize administrative and bureaucratic stuff. Just like every other discipline in every industry already does. If they did nothing more than compile and then critically analyze all the rules and procedures in effect, listing who does what, it'd be a huge service.

specialist 6y ago

re OC #2 No uniformity in national elections HAVA and Election Assistence Commission (EAC.gov) were very modest initial efforts to codify and normalize our elections. Do you object to HAVA and EAC.gov? Do you object to NIST creating standardized, uniform weights and measures? If you support NIST but oppose EAC, why? What's the functional, practical difference? re OC #3 No national election management body There's a lot of daylight between our current non-system and nationalized election administration. We don't even have a nationalized election observers, reporting on key metrics. Rhetorical question: How does one manage what one does not measure? "except for the meeting of the electoral college" That Foreign Policy did not advocate democratic reforms, like abolishing Electoral College, shows their restraint. The obvious reforms they did suggest are less controversial than standardized accounting rules (FASB's GAAP).

worker767424 6y ago

What's fun with the electoral college is the president and VP are voted for separately. Mike Pence got more votes than DJ Trump in 2016.

specialist 6y ago

Followup. Because I buried the lede. No legislative action is needed. Jurisdictions can normalize election administration. Just by comparing notes and adopting best practices. This is how it's always been. National associations and organizations have always done this. For instance, the national groups and local affiliates working on disability issues advocated for touchscreens and other ADA stuff. There would be immediate benefits to providing better resources for these efforts. Additionally, there'd be immediate benefits to creating a new study groups with the charter to normalize administrative and bureaucratic stuff. Just like every other discipline in every industry already does. If they did nothing more than compile and then critically analyze all the rules and procedures in effect, listing who does what, it'd be a huge service.