I think the states handling election in theory makes sense. It’s a decentralized system that is harder to undermine. An independent body may bring consistency, but I don’t think that helps at all in combatting Trump’s tampering.
Also, many states are using paper ballots and always have been.
Decentralization isn’t always better, it’s not as efficient and, in this case, it makes it so people’s ability to choose their president varies by state and in red states there’s scheming to prevent the Democrats from gaining ground.
With an independent body and equal access to voting for all, Trump wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.
You say it’s harder to undermine but it’s getting undermined while we don’t have issues like we see in the USA right next door in Canada.
I think you are coupling a centralized voting system with one that gives equal access, and I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Being a centralized system makes it consistent, but not necessarily fair.
An independent body could be easier to undermine (single point of attack), and be just as likely, if not more likely, to reduce voting access across the country all at once. I think we’d have corruption either way. The inefficiency of the decentralized system could be slowing it down.
I think you are looking at the system with hindsight and assuming that because the current system is suffering problems, that a different system wouldn’t suffer those same problems. I don’t think you can justify that conclusion
But there’s corruption and it’s inefficient… It takes days or weeks to get results in some states but not in others, some people simply don’t have access to a place to cast their vote to prevent them from voting for the “wrong” party…
I think the states handling election in theory makes sense. It’s a decentralized system that is harder to undermine. An independent body may bring consistency, but I don’t think that helps at all in combatting Trump’s tampering.
Also, many states are using paper ballots and always have been.
Decentralization isn’t always better, it’s not as efficient and, in this case, it makes it so people’s ability to choose their president varies by state and in red states there’s scheming to prevent the Democrats from gaining ground.
With an independent body and equal access to voting for all, Trump wouldn’t have been elected in the first place.
You say it’s harder to undermine but it’s getting undermined while we don’t have issues like we see in the USA right next door in Canada.
I think you are coupling a centralized voting system with one that gives equal access, and I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Being a centralized system makes it consistent, but not necessarily fair.
An independent body could be easier to undermine (single point of attack), and be just as likely, if not more likely, to reduce voting access across the country all at once. I think we’d have corruption either way. The inefficiency of the decentralized system could be slowing it down.
I think you are looking at the system with hindsight and assuming that because the current system is suffering problems, that a different system wouldn’t suffer those same problems. I don’t think you can justify that conclusion
The problem here isn’t efficiency though. Inefficiency I think is a reasonable trade off to make to prevent corruption at scale.
But there’s corruption and it’s inefficient… It takes days or weeks to get results in some states but not in others, some people simply don’t have access to a place to cast their vote to prevent them from voting for the “wrong” party…