Federal takeover overdue

NiftyNiblick

NiftyNiblick

1960s Chick Magnet
A federal takeover of elections is not only a good idea, but an absolute imperative given the voter suppression efforts in the backwater red states.

I can't imagine why any sane person would object.

Frankly, I don't believe that many of them do.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
A federal takeover of elections is not only a good idea, but an absolute imperative given the voter suppression efforts in the backwater red states.

I can't imagine why any sane person would object.

Frankly, I don't believe that many of them do.
Click to expand...

I actually agree but I don't see how the R's and D's could possible agree on how it should be done.
There should be some sort of standardization for nationwide elections.
A good start is to get rid of mail in ballots and only count votes done at polls or absentee ballots that have been properly applied for.
Of course right there D's will call that "voter suppression".
 
anonymoose said:
I actually agree but I don't see how the R's and D's could possible agree on how it should be done.
There should be some sort of standardization for nationwide elections.
A good start is to get rid of mail in ballots and only count votes done at polls or absentee ballots that have been properly applied for.
Of course right there D's will call that "voter suppression".
Click to expand...

If absentee ballots are routinely approved as requested by all who might prefer to vote my mail, I personally wouldn't call that "voter suppression."
Suppression of registrations must also be addressed, however.

We had no trouble finding all eighteen year old males back when we had a military draft,
so while I would have personally preferred 21, except maybe for under 21 members of the military,
getting everybody registered shouldn't be a problem either.

This is consistent, by the way.
Eighteen year old military personnel are allowed to drink on a military base in every state.

I don't think 18 year old Americans in particular are mature enough to vote,
but if they can serve, so be it.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
A federal takeover of elections is not only a good idea, but an absolute imperative given the voter suppression efforts in the backwater red states.

I can't imagine why any sane person would object.

Frankly, I don't believe that many of them do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the Federal gov in the U.S. is so great at doing things. :rolleyes:
 
NiftyNiblick said:
A federal takeover of elections is not only a good idea, but an absolute imperative given the voter suppression efforts in the backwater red states.

I can't imagine why any sane person would object.

Frankly, I don't believe that many of them do.
Click to expand...

It's unconstitutional...
 
NiftyNiblick said:
If absentee ballots are routinely approved as requested by all who might prefer to vote my mail, I personally wouldn't call that "voter suppression."
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
NiftyNiblick said:
Suppression of registrations must also be addressed, however.
Click to expand...
OK. As far as I know it's quite easy to register. Many don't want to be automatically registered because they just don't want to be registered. E.g., to avoid jury duty.
NiftyNiblick said:
We had no trouble finding all eighteen year old males back when we had a military draft,
so while I would have personally preferred 21, except maybe for under 21 members of the military,
getting everybody registered shouldn't be a problem either.
Click to expand...
Many don't want to be automatically registered because they just don't want to be registered. E.g., to avoid jury duty.
 
archives said:
Just pulled the nation thru its first generational crisis since WWII, or did you think the private sphere got us to where we are now addressing Covid
Click to expand...

Bah. Should have just let it roll. Corona was nowhere near as bad as they made out.

Never needed to be any shutdowns/masks/"social distancing"/spit shields or any of it.

In b4 your aneurysm kicks in.
 
Last edited:
goat said:
The voting rights act of 1965 made Jim Crow laws illegal by enforcing the 15th amendment but Scalia and Thomas ruled that the constitution prevented white christian males for staying in power.
Click to expand...

The constitution leaves how elections are handled up to the states.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750

Is it Constitutional, Yes or No?: No, HR1 is not constitutional.
Degree of Certainty: 100%
Click to expand...
https://echocheck.org/fact-check-is-hr1-the-election-bill-constitutional/

How many provisions of H.R. 1, if enacted, would be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional? It’s not clear anyone has tried to compile a full list, but the likely answer is, “quite a few.”
Click to expand...
https://www.cato.org/blog/hr-1-how-many-its-provisions-are-unconstitutional

Unless you want to take The Daily Kos' word for it based on their research using Wikipedia...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/4/1/2024021/-HR-1-Constitutionality
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The constitution leaves how elections are handled up to the states.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750


https://echocheck.org/fact-check-is-hr1-the-election-bill-constitutional/


https://www.cato.org/blog/hr-1-how-many-its-provisions-are-unconstitutional

Unless you want to take The Daily Kos' word for it based on their research using Wikipedia...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/4/1/2024021/-HR-1-Constitutionality
Click to expand...
HR-1 is a dirty trick that allows donors to give 1000 X more than they do now. I'm talking about the the 15th amendment which states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
 
goat said:
HR-1 is a dirty trick that allows donors to give 1000 X more than they do now. I'm talking about the the 15th amendment which states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Click to expand...

If we had a functioning SCOTUS it would be illegal.

We dont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top