Current Events > Voting rights should NOT be controlled by individual states.

(+) Yeah! (+)

If were voting in federal elections, why would there be different voting laws between the states? Makes zero sense.

Dont give me that well Missouri has different people than California so the same voting laws wouldnt make sense. Bullshit. Different populations and types of people have nothing to do with equal access to voting across all states.

---

You absolutely super duper do not want the federal government in control of its own election.

---

anything federal is immediately hated no matter what to half the population.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You absolutely super duper do not want the federal government in control of its own election.

Plenty of other free nations have guidelines set by the federal government.

---

MFBKBass5 posted...

Plenty of other free nations have guidelines set by the federal government.

Plenty of other free nations aren't hamstrung with a 2 party system or a FPTP voting system.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You absolutely super duper do not want the federal government in control of its own election.

Imagine if Trump had control on that level in 2020.

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

Imagine if Trump had control in that level in 2020

the president does not equal the federal government

---

MFBKBass5 posted...

the president does not equal the federal government

The federal government was controlled by Trump stooges on every level in 2020 except the House of Representatives.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The federal government was controlled by Trump stooges on every level in 2020 except the House of Representatives.

Its like you have zero concept as to what the 3 branches of government are, or how the US works in general lmao

---

MFBKBass5 posted...

If were voting in federal elections

We're not.

The people of the states get to pick housemembers to send to DC, no real standardization is implied.
As of the 17th amendment, the people of the states get to pick senators to send to DC, no real standardization is implied.
The state legislatures get to pick electors, who pick the president.

Questionmarktarius posted...

We're not.

The people of the states get to pick housemembers to send to DC, no real standardization is implied.
As of the 17th amendment, the people of the states get to pick senators to send to DC, no real standardization is implied.
The state legislatures get to pick electors, who pick the president.

That is a fair pointand even more reason to get rid of the electoral college.


---

Questionmarktarius posted...

The people of the states get to pick housemembers to send to DC, no real standardization is implied.
As of the 17th amendment, the people of the states get to pick senators to send to DC, no real standardization is implied.
The state legislatures get to pick electors, who pick the president.

Generally, electors are chosen by the party of the winner of the popular vote in each state. Republicans want to be able to throw that out and choose their own electors regardless of how the vote goes.

---

this is one of those things that sounds great... until you realize that you aren't going to be the one setting the rules. at least with the State's Rights setup, if one state does something awful, moving to another is quite a bit easier than moving to another country. you also don't have to fight through half the country obstructing everything. and, imo most importantly, it allows states to experiment quite a bit, which can convince other states and so on. rather than few legislators trying futilely to convince a couple hundred others.

we're (hopefully) seeing this right now with Maine's Ranked Choice experiment. it's a system that needs to be stongly considered. now, we all have a chance to see it work in real time.

---

MFBKBass5 posted...

why would there be different voting laws between the states?

this little thing called the constitution that said the states will handle how they vote and good luck getting 34 states to agree on something to change it.
MFBKBass5 posted...

Its like you have zero concept as to what the 3 branches of government are, or how the US works in general lmao

says the guy making this topic in the first place.

---

"The civil war was about states rights bro, it wasn't about slavery bro"

What half the users in here sound like

---

CableZL posted...

Generally, electors are chosen by the party of the winner of the popular vote in each state.

That's how it ended up being, yes. Article 2 lets every state choose its electors however it wants. They just all base it on a popular vote right now.

Republicans want to be able to throw that out and choose their own electors regardless of how the vote goes.

Article 2 still fully allows that.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Article 2 still fully allows that.

Even at the expense of willfully disenfranchising voters?

---

We need a Federal law protecting voting rights and ensuring everyone has a chance at an absentee ballot. You shouldn't need a reason to vote early besides the fact that it's more convenient.

Then, leave control of the operations in the hands of state.

We also need an anti-gerrymandering law. Let computers create our voting districts.

---

CableZL posted...

Even at the expense of willfully disenfranchising voters?

The concept of popular vote for president seems to have started in 1804. Yet, nobody's thought to codify that into the constitution yet.

CableZL posted...

Even at the expense of willfully disenfranchising voters?

Yes. There's no limitations placed on the states. The elections are literally optional. Requires a constitutional amendment to fix. It's possible SCOTUS might say "no that's stupid and clearly not intended" but that's a lot of faith to put on 6-3 Mr. No Voting Rights Roberts

---

We had a relatively useful floor on what states could do to fuck with voting rights, at least since 1965. The Supreme Court gutted it during the Obama admin and that's why we're seeing all this trash now. States like Texas, Georgia, Florida etc wouldn't have even gotten off the ground with a lot of this stuff.

And it was all done based on the idea that racism barely exists anymore. That's not hyperbole, it's in the opinion that gutted the Voting Rights Act. That's why this colorblind, racism is fixed attitude is so dangerous. It's one of the most effective tools for horrible people to do horrible things.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's possible SCOTUS might say "no that's stupid and clearly not intended"

The only real vector for that would be wide interpretation of the 24th amendment.