Robert Winner


This conversation is closed.

Should the federal government take over elections.

In view of the problems reported (both true and false) long lines, voting after polls are closed, machine malfunctions, etc .... would it be better if the feds took care of this issue.

Flordia and even my own Arizona had problems this year. It seems that every year there are mail in votes and others that never seem to make it and there is always a article bemoaning the system.

Would it be better to have the feds run the presidential election?

  • thumb
    Nov 16 2012: I was always told to turn and run whenever someone approached me and said, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Elections should be administered by the 50 state Governors operating in accordance with mutually agreed-upon regulations. Washington D.C. has no rightful place in the process of administering voting. NO! NO! NO!
  • thumb
    Nov 25 2012: You're kidding right? Have the fox watch the hen house? Perhaps set standards for all to go by but never take over.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2012: Personally, I like the way the system works at this time, because in most states, the secretary of state is responsible for the election process, and I believe the process is better governed locally...UNLESS, of course, you have a secretary of state who IS NOT doing his/her job appropriately.

    In places like Florida, for example, where there seems to be continual challenges with the voting process, if I was a resident there, I would seriously investigate the secretary of state and whether or not s/he is doing his/her job. Same for Arizona Robert, if you think/feel there were problems in your state, do something about it! If we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. Is your sec. of state appointed? If so...appointed by whom? Elected? Get the details, and follow through with appropriate action in YOUR state to contribute to a better process:>)
  • Nov 16 2012: It would be much too dangerous to have the federal government involved with the election process. Corruption could ruin the country. Mistakes could make the process unworkable.

    An alternative would be to have the states get together and set standards. Start by standardizing the goals. For example, no one should have to wait in line longer than 30 minutes. Another would be that the counting of votes cast on election day should be completed by 9 PM. Once the goals are established the means could be addressed, but the means could not be standard for all states because the populations vary so greatly. Adopting the standards could be voluntary; very small states might not need them, and some states might want to try out new methods that are much more cost efficient. If standards were available, states would at least have to answer to their citizens why they could not meet the standard.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Nov 16 2012: I would like the FED to regulate FEDERAL elections (president & constitutional amendments - even though constitutional amendments are really state issues). Things to include would be hours of operation, require equality in number of people at polling stations, early voting hours legislation, and whatever rules it feels necessary in FEDERAL elections. Then, because the choices for president are so few, paper ballots can be used and they are less prone to corruption. Let the states maintain control over their own elections. To place state elections in the hands of the feds is to threaten your own voice. Too much corruption lives in Washington.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2012: No, the more centralized the more likely corruption would be.Although I'm not sure that would be true in the case of Illinois... Also it is more in keeping with the electoral college and the Republic.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2012: Why are you thinking the federal government would do better in setting up and operating local voting places? I am struggling to find an argument for such an arrangement.
    • thumb
      Nov 16 2012: I really do not think it would be a good idea .... But it has been suggested? I think the worst possible manager of anything is the government.

      The only thing I can think of is that it could standardize all of the rules and policies in the vote for president.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2012: I think local on-the-ground operations that are often sited in schools and local public buildings are best operated locally, unless there is clear reason not to do it that way.