3 ms·

And regardless, all elections are run by a non-partisan agency. Just like the health service, the police service, the fire service, and the garbage service.

by ttul 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
CountSessine 6y ago
I really don’t think that that’s going to be the savings you think it is. Counting votes isn’t front-loaded with a flat rate cost or subject to duplication of effort. Having a single federal elections agency isn’t going to help if you have a super complicated ballot.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  There are plenty of things to vote for though, and usually it's considered a good thing to put things on the ballot in presidential years because presidential elections have the highest turnout. My Washington ballot this year was a double-sided single page bubble sheet. I'm not sure how much easier it's supposed to get.
jkhdigital 6y ago
Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you mean that these services are centralized? Because elections are indeed run by “non-partisan” (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context) agencies here in the US, but they are not centralized at the federal level.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Nonpartisan would mean not dependent on elected officials declaring a party. Generally speaking, in most US states the person certifying the election result is the Secretary of State, an elected official elected while affiliated to a party. There was a whole brouhaha when Brian Kemp was running for governor of Georgia while also the Secretary of State, because that looked like a conflict of interest in a hotly contested election.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    The only way to get non-partisan would be elect panel to oversee the administration of an office, and let each major party with 30% or more in office have equal # of votes. Like picking teams for school sports. It'll end up 50/50. Let the speaker of the house be the deciding vote for ties. Judges shouldn't be appointed by the fed but be randomized by computers for a database of vetted lawyers/judges who could assume the role, and all federal judges only serve for the case they're called in for (basically reverse jury duty).
refurb 6y ago
Non-partisan? I mean, they are controlled by the elected government, who appoint people to do what they want. With the exception of elected sheriff's in the US, I wouldn't say it's less partisan. Take a look at what's going on in Alberta with the new Conservative gov't. Plenty of "non-partisan" government agencies are raising hell over the new policy direction.

And regardless, all elections are run by a non-partisan agency. Just like the health service, the police service, the fire service, and the garbage service.

by ttul 6y ago

And regardless, all elections are run by a non-partisan agency. Just like the health service, the police service, the fire service, and the garbage service.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

CountSessine 6y ago

I really don’t think that that’s going to be the savings you think it is. Counting votes isn’t front-loaded with a flat rate cost or subject to duplication of effort. Having a single federal elections agency isn’t going to help if you have a super complicated ballot.

bobthepanda 6y ago
There are plenty of things to vote for though, and usually it's considered a good thing to put things on the ballot in presidential years because presidential elections have the highest turnout. My Washington ballot this year was a double-sided single page bubble sheet. I'm not sure how much easier it's supposed to get.

jkhdigital 6y ago

Why do you keep bringing this up? Do you mean that these services are centralized? Because elections are indeed run by “non-partisan” (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context) agencies here in the US, but they are not centralized at the federal level.

bobthepanda 6y ago
Nonpartisan would mean not dependent on elected officials declaring a party. Generally speaking, in most US states the person certifying the election result is the Secretary of State, an elected official elected while affiliated to a party. There was a whole brouhaha when Brian Kemp was running for governor of Georgia while also the Secretary of State, because that looked like a conflict of interest in a hotly contested election.
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  The only way to get non-partisan would be elect panel to oversee the administration of an office, and let each major party with 30% or more in office have equal # of votes. Like picking teams for school sports. It'll end up 50/50. Let the speaker of the house be the deciding vote for ties. Judges shouldn't be appointed by the fed but be randomized by computers for a database of vetted lawyers/judges who could assume the role, and all federal judges only serve for the case they're called in for (basically reverse jury duty).

refurb 6y ago

Non-partisan? I mean, they are controlled by the elected government, who appoint people to do what they want. With the exception of elected sheriff's in the US, I wouldn't say it's less partisan. Take a look at what's going on in Alberta with the new Conservative gov't. Plenty of "non-partisan" government agencies are raising hell over the new policy direction.