While the engineer in me would love to see things standardized, the last thing we need is the federal government taking over yet one more thing from the states.

Should voting and elections be taken over by the Federal Government?

Well, we aren’t always voting in FEDERAL elections. Most elections are local. So I’d say that’s a stupid question go begin with.

I do think on the national level, i.e. presidential elections, the voting process can be improved. I don’t know why we have an “electiond day.” We should have an election week. This protracted primary process is ridiculous. It’s set up this way purely to make boatloads of money for newspapers and television stations. The media lobby has a vested interest in keeping the status quo because without election ads and pharmaceutical ads, they’ve got bubkus.

But in terms of who *controls* our elections, of course this needs to be kept local. The feds don’t need to be involved in electing local representatives.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo

This nation is the greatest representative Republic in the history of the human race.

Embrace Federalism.

My favorites, one at a time:

#9

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed09.htm

And the great Federalist Paper from Madison,

#10

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

[…] you think we have national elections in this country, Glen Dean is here to tell you that you are wrong: Voting is not administered by the federal government, but by state and […]

It has occurred to me that many people have no idea of what Federalism means.

It doesn’t mean an all knowing all powerful Federal Government. In fact, it is just the opposite.

It has occurred to me that many people have no idea of what 99% of the words used to describe the functions a government mean.

It has occurred to me that many people have no idea of what 99% of the words used to describe the functions a government mean.

I don’t know what the percentage is, but sadly you are right. I don’t know many people who could pass a basic civics test.

SB, sounds like we are kind of on the same page. I agree that the primary process is stupid. Usually, by the time the primaries down here are held, the thing is already decided.

9,
If you ever want to get really depressed, watch Jay Leno ask people on the street civics questions.

If you ever want to get really depressed, just watch Jay Leno. Period.

If you ever want to get really depressed, watch Jay Leno ask people on the street civics questions.

I have seen Jay do that bit. Sadly, that is modern Americana. It is very funny for a moment, they it occurs to you how very sad it is for this country.

Jay does a public service. Everyone should see how ignorant regular people are about our government.

We have to get our public schools to teach government and civics instead of all of this “feel good” nonsense.

Young Americans do not have the knowledge to make basic choices.

Depressed is not part of my wiring, spread the word, Federalism is part of America. One of the best parts.

next week’s Supreme Court hearing on the Indiana Voter ID case may make all other opinions on “right to vote” fruitless. odd that the case arrives just as the push for a constitutional amendment gathers steam.

If you ever want to get really depressed, just watch Jay Leno. Period.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWB-kd09GXY

“Well, we aren’t always voting in FEDERAL elections. Most elections are local. So I’d say that’s a stupid question go begin with.”

How is Glen’s question stupid? The federal government, in some capacity, often sees fit to get involved in state and local elections (see, e.g., Baker v. Carr, in which the United States Supreme Court stuck its nose into Tennessee state senate elections.)

“Well, we aren’t always voting in FEDERAL elections. Most elections are local. So I’d say that’s a stupid question go begin with.”

Not to mention, if it is made a “Constitutional right” then Federal folks will have the jurisdiction–and the obligation!, to protect and defend that “right.”

I thought these two posts about voting were some of the best posts I have read in a long time. Thanks Glen.

There are anti-federalists among us. They want an all powerful federal government. Thank God for Madison. He foresaw this.

In this election only Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have discussed Federalism. Since it is possible a Democrat will be the next President I would like to hear from the Democratic candidates on their views on the role of the federal government. To me, this is one of the key issues in this election.

Not to mention, if it is made a “Constitutional right” then Federal folks will have the jurisdiction–and the obligation!, to protect and defend that “right.”

They already do - see the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.

To avoid the hub-bub of the a few posts backs, I’ll acknowledge that apparently the conservative version of the Constitution is missing Article 4, Section 4 and word my statement thusly: If voting is “made” a constitutional right, it would take from the states no more power to regulate voting that it would take from states the power to create gun ownership laws if bearing arms were “made” a constitutional right.

Federal folks will have the jurisdiction–and the obligation!, to protect and defend that “right.”

42 U.S.C. § 1973–1973aa-6

Such statutory authority! already exists.

Gosh, then why are we having this discussion?!

I dunno, just ask those Wing Nuts at FairVote . . .

But I’ll concede that the argument for a federal right to vote is a lot stronger than one for a federal right to marry.

Not to mention, if it is made a “Constitutional right” then Federal folks will have the jurisdiction–and the obligation!, to protect and defend that “right.”

Point well taken Ned. We need some eyes on this one. Sometimes it is better to leave it alone. The law of unintended consequences can be instant karma.

But I’ll concede that the argument for a federal right to vote is a lot stronger than one for a federal right to marry.

You got that right. There is no federal right to marry, just a federal right to equal treatment under the law. There is certainly no constitutional reason that any state can’t outright prohibit marriage altogether though. I suppose you’re going to be the first to sign up to have your marriage voided just to ensure gay people can’t get married?

Dolphin, what is stopping gay people from marrying? You can marry a woman any time you want to.

Ha, I’m just messing with you. I figured I’d go ahead and tell you before you took that bait and ran with it.

dolphin,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you haven’t always believed there was not a federal to marry.

Well, Glen, the problem is too many people still think that is a logical argument in the same way not too long ago many people found the argument that a black person had the same right to marry a member of the their own race as did a white person to be a compelling one.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you haven’t always believed there was not a federal to marry.

You are wrong. I have always believed their was a federal right to be treated equally under the law. I have never argued for a “right to marry,” simply that a state cannot withhold equal protection from some citizens without a compelling reason.

I should clarify, that I would STILL oppose a motion by any state to outright prohibit marriage, but I would be opposed to it on the basis of it being bad policy versus the basis of it being a denial of rights.

I’ve known you for awhile. I couldn’t resist it.

Isn’t “Loving” a court decision that you have often referred to in asserting that marriage is a right?

Isn’t “Loving” a court decision that you have often referred to in asserting that marriage is a right?

Not all rights come from the federal government. I suppose I should have said there is no “federal right to marry”

[…] post reminds me of this post at Music City Bloggers, where I asked the question, “For what reason would one oppose requiring voters to identify […]