Start at the beginning, read the table of contents, and understand that all of those are currently functions carried out by the states. What Schumer wanted/wants to do is take that power from the states and create a federal authority to dictate to the states every one of those issues.
Yeah but I don't necessarily disagree with any of those. One of the major problems for a national election, for the presidency, is everyone does it differently. That is decidedly NOT a strength in diversity or whatever anyone wants to call it. We would be much better off with that piece standardized so it is fair and consistent everywhere the same to eliminate the possibility of a Trump calling various state officials in states where he deems the laws to be more lax or the process to be more convoluted and asking them to decertify the election. If the same process is followed everywhere this is greatly diminished if not completely eliminated. What is wrong with that? Now how it is done is a matter of considerable debate, but the idea of standardizing the process is laudable and likely the best idea given the circumstances. Not every power given to the states is best handled at the state level, especially when things become more complicated and onerous, such as elections like this, which need to be clear and untainted and simplified as much as possible to limit the opportunities for corruption. Corruption loves red tape. That is almost exclusively what Trump has been tugging on, all the red tape he can find. The more of that we can eliminate the better. Where is it written that every power given to the states is sacrosanct and perfect in every way? It is all up for interpretation and reinterpretation depending on the needs of the times, hence the addition of an amendment process by the founders.
In this I could not more strongly disagree with you. Decentralization has time and time again proven to be a strength. No authority has proven to be perfect. It is a strength to have 50+ different sets of people independently trying solutions to a problem, stress testing it, seeing what doesn't work, copying ideas from other groups that got something better, and iterating over and over to improve. Top-down, centrally controlled solutions are brittle and do not evolve solutions nearly as fast as a distributed, federalism approach.
Ok so you really took a specific topic and went super broad with it. Where did I say I wanted literally everything the states do to be centralized in the federal government. Yes it is a strength to have the states have their own control over certain things. I do not think the national election is one of them. Look at the chaos it has created in this election cycle. To be clear, I did not say that a central power should fully control the election at a single point. What I said was that it should be standardized and held the same in each state to minimize cracks and loopholes in a critical system. The states are still in control, they just all do it the same way.
Yes. That is why our districts are called "states" when in the rest of the world 'state' is synonymous with 'country' and why our nation in the civil war was called "the union". States are more than areas of the USA and I think that is to our benefit. There is an advantage to the decentralization of power.
Guess we will just agree to disagree. Like your little jab that I am not looking at the big picture, when it is exactly the big picture that tells us that the system we currently have for this type of election is rife with opportunities for corruption, but since the big big big picture is, hey the election still worked, nothing to see here, then you are ok with fostering possible corruption as long as it happens at the state level. Gotcha. You have your blind eye working well I see.
Thanks fish. Yeah I usually stay out of these things, but it is a slow day at work and I am kind of bored. lol
