|
Replies: 36
| visibility 467
|
Heisman Winner [119698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54467
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Federal elections should have consistent national rules
Nov 10, 2020, 9:38 AM
|
|
And not vary state to state....
Agree/disagree?
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Disagree. The states should determine their own rules.
Nov 10, 2020, 9:40 AM
|
|
That's the constitutional way, and it's consistent with the idea of the electoral college.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54467
Joined: 6/24/09
|
OK, spooneye. If Virginia and a few other states had done
Nov 10, 2020, 9:45 AM
|
|
in 2016 what PA has done with rule changes, would you have supported that? Meaning changing the federal election rules in those states at the 10th or 11th hour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
The way you're framing that makes it seem nefarious though.
Nov 10, 2020, 9:49 AM
|
|
If no pandemic existed, and some states were suddenly scrambling right before the election to change laws, particularly around absentee ballots/postmark dates/etc., then that's fishy af. When it's framed within the uniqueness of a pandemic that keeps many people sheltered and out of the public, then it becomes a different discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: The way you're framing that makes it seem nefarious though.
Nov 10, 2020, 9:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: The way you're framing that makes it seem nefarious though.
Nov 10, 2020, 10:34 AM
|
|
T3,
you said this: As I said in my thread, PA changed the rules 3 months before COVID was even a thing. Maybe they got the word from Bill Gates’ conference.
So then how is this "changes in the 10th and 11th hour" which you also said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Actually bengaline said that.
Nov 10, 2020, 10:36 AM
|
|
But it fits the pattern. The rules were changed too recently and too long ago. The timing is always suspicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: OK, spooneye. If Virginia and a few other states had done
Nov 10, 2020, 9:55 AM
[ in reply to OK, spooneye. If Virginia and a few other states had done ] |
|
You didn't ask if I supported a particular rule change. You asked whether the state government or the federal government should be in charge of election rules. I said state.
Now you're asking if I'd support "rule changes." Well, mention a particular rule change and I'll tell you if I like it or not, but that's different from your first question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54467
Joined: 6/24/09
|
ITS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION!
Nov 10, 2020, 10:07 AM
|
|
Jeez.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
SORRY BUDDY!
Nov 10, 2020, 10:10 AM
|
|
Generally speaking I don't think election rules should be changed within a few months of the election.
hth
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1878]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 1864
Joined: 1/22/12
|
Because their entire argument is as flimsy as a wet napkin
Nov 10, 2020, 2:33 PM
|
|
Don't try to argue logic with illogical people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
I agree with you, for several reasons, including yours. States
Nov 10, 2020, 10:03 AM
[ in reply to Disagree. The states should determine their own rules. ] |
|
should handle it. I will add that this reasoning has to then be applied consistently. I realize this is a hot button example, but just to isolate the issue, there can be no gnashing of teeth if the Court reverses Roe v Wade. If a state wants to consider a fetus a life, or wants to allow abortion at nine months, that state has the right to legislate criminality re life and due process. I'm not talking about thoughts re life and abortion, but the states' ability to decide. Or will we 'yes but' on an issue-by-issue basis? Which?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I agree with you, for several reasons, including yours. States
Nov 10, 2020, 10:18 AM
|
|
Good points but we certainly don't apply the rule consistently, and that's for important constitutional reasons.
For example, the states cannot infringe on any individual rights that are protected by the US Constitution. Those rights become a floor that the states must comply with. When the right to an abortion was found to be a constitutional right, it prevented the states from criminalizing it. But abortion isn't special that way. The states cannot criminalize any activity that is protected under the US Constitution.
So that's the federal/state issue-by-issue question. In the case of voting, it's the opposite of abortion insofar as the Constitution REQUIRES the states to determine the presidential elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Staying with abortion as an example (only because it is so
Nov 10, 2020, 10:40 AM
|
|
clear), to say that states cannot infringe on constitutional rights, because of what a Court decided, becomes circular logic. (Not accusing you of that - you dont do that - just discussion the issue.)
- All powers not specifically granted the Fed belong to states.
- The Court says abortion is constitutionally protected.
- The Court thus cant reverse Roe v Wade on state power grounds.
Circular reasoning: A thing exists because I said it does, so I cant say it doesn't exist. Yes, because the Court is the one that said abortion is a right, that same Court can then say only states can legislate that issue.
My point is that once one says that the constitution grants most power to the states, that reasoning should stand consistently. In gray areas the court decides. One can argue what the court should decide, but one cant argue that the court cannot undo what it previously decided.
In this example, with no clear, or even ambiguous, wording that protects an abortion decision, legislation regarding the life of the fetus has to remain with the state. What one thinks about abortion is irrelevant to that question. Roe v Wade is clearly ideological rather than constitutional.
Minimum wage would be another example. It was Fed mandated only by interpreting "interstate commerce" broadly enough to include every company everywhere. That was clearly an ideological decision. Whatever one thinks of a minimum wage (I'm all for it), every state has the power to set the floor, imo. That decision will not be reversed, and its not that big of a deal, but if we're being constitutional rather than ideological, it should be. And, imo, there are ideologies more important than who-gets-paid-what that say we should leave it constitutional.
Again, I am not arguing pro or con abortion or minimum wage. I'm saying that we cant say the Fed should impose itself because of what we think "is fair". We have done that too much, to the degree that the Court has become legislative, which transfers huge power to it, and to the Pres. Is this what we want, more Blasie-Ford and Barrett fights? That much power out of state and legislative hands turns us into a quasi autocracy. Maybe we are there already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Staying with abortion as an example (only because it is so
Nov 10, 2020, 11:21 AM
|
|
Lots of good points in there, and it's too much to try to get into all of it. So maybe this example will be thought-provoking on the issue:
Until the 21st century, the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment applied to the federal government only. Originally, ALL rights in the Bill of Rights were restraints only on the federal government. Much later, the Supreme Court created the "incorporation doctrine" which said that the Bill of Rights now applies (is "incorporated") to the states. Except the doctrine didn't even say that. The rule was that CERTAIN rights in the Bill of Rights apply to the States.
Is this the Supreme Court saying that a right exists because the Court says it does? Sort of, but not quite: The Court always "finds" the right in the constitutional language. The Constitution itself is a set of broad principles rather than clearly applicable rules, and the Court has relied on some of the vague language ("due process," for example) to make those "findings."
Now, is it wrong that the Court suddenly "found" a right to have the 2nd Amendment incorporated to the States? I don't know if it's right or wrong. Is it consistent with prior decisions? No. But this is how things have gone historically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Typo in the last paragraph
Nov 10, 2020, 11:30 AM
|
|
Here's a rewrite of that paragraph:
Now, is it wrong that the Court suddenly "found" that the Second Amendment applies to the States? I don't know if it's right or wrong. Is it consistent with prior decisions? No. But this is how things have gone historically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Right (pun intended). From what I have read about the people
Nov 10, 2020, 11:44 AM
[ in reply to Re: Staying with abortion as an example (only because it is so ] |
|
involved, the intent of the constitution was to say, "We are a collection of mostly autonomous states, and for common protection the Fed will have this little bit of power, the states keeping all other powers normally given to govt." Brilliantly conceived, imo. Heck, the original GW was even afraid to be pres, hating as he did the idea of governmental power granted to a person. Yes, the Court has incrementally taken every unsaid thing possible to grant the unsaid thing to the Fed. On that we agree, that this has happened. If you have highlighted a similar example toward the states, I understand.
My point was that once we say, on a legislative or procedural matter, "The states have that power", we should stay with that line of reasoning, including past Court decisions that infringed on it. I know we cant put the entire genie back into the bottle, but our Fed budget and tax structure should be a fraction of what it is, and we in SC can handle our social issues just fine, and much less expensively. So can NY and WY, however differently they might do so. I promise you, we in SC can handle ourselves just fine.
Russia has oligarchs. We in the US can handle that, and the only worse condition would be a one-world govt to address it. Same here. If California has a certain condition, we in SC can deal with it as it applies to us. But that's another subject. LOL, let's not go there today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Agreed.
Nov 10, 2020, 12:50 PM
|
|
I think it would be very interesting to scale back the federal government and give the states more responsibilities. We should consider scaling things back, one issue at a time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12592]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6312
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: Federal elections should have consistent national rules
Nov 10, 2020, 9:41 AM
|
|
YES. Federal means Federal. One standard for Federal elections. If local and state elections want to do weird stuff--have at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I thought conservatives opposed a strong central fed govt
Nov 10, 2020, 9:43 AM
|
|
And favored more states' rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
You can't trust the federal government.
Nov 10, 2020, 10:17 AM
|
|
Oh no wait, we can ONLY trust the federal government.
Count the votes!
Stop the count!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38238
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Is this like...
Nov 10, 2020, 10:20 AM
|
|
I need all these guns to protect myself from the government!!11!!
Also, keep fully funding and arming the military and police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111575]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73752
Joined: 9/10/03
|
yes
Nov 10, 2020, 9:44 AM
|
|
everyone over the age of 18 should be mailed a ballot in every state, and the President chosen by total number of votes across all states so it is consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54467
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Whether they are a citizen or not?***
Nov 10, 2020, 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111575]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73752
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Whether they are a citizen or not?***
Nov 10, 2020, 9:48 AM
|
|
yes, illegal aliens living in the United States should get a vote, along with everyone in Prison, as well as the citizens of Canada, France, and Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119698]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54467
Joined: 6/24/09
|
You forgot dead people over 18....***
Nov 10, 2020, 9:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [64837]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22718
Joined: 9/27/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2203]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 4333
Joined: 9/10/18
|
Re: yes
Nov 10, 2020, 9:49 AM
[ in reply to yes ] |
|
You are way out there on that one my friend. The electoral College was invented to keep only a few states controlling the federal government. No way that would ever be agreed on by either house of congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111575]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73752
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: yes
Nov 10, 2020, 9:59 AM
|
|
it is a shame, giving the mouth breathers from the sticks that much say in an election. I do not think the framers intended that either. They wanted the best and brightest of us voting, not the simpletons who didn't graduate HS who all came out in support for trump. You can see where this leads to problems and the downfall of our democratic republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The answer is both. And that's also the current reality.***
Nov 10, 2020, 10:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
That is:
Nov 10, 2020, 10:04 AM
|
|
There are national rules, and it also varies state-to-state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3516]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 4246
Joined: 12/5/06
|
Disagree...with a caveat
Nov 10, 2020, 10:08 AM
|
|
States should be able define their own process with regard to mail in ballots, deadlines for absentees, etc. However, I would argue that it was never the intent that electoral votes should be awarded ‘winner take all’. Assigning electors proportionally would help ensure the will of the people of a particular state. As the rules exist in most states today...a Republican vote in CA means nothing from a national standpoint. Even though there are a large number of Republicans in CA, pub candidates rarely visit to campaign. As it stands today, candidates only spend money and actively campaign in the 13 or 14 battleground states and tailor their platforms based on the demographics/issues important to those states at the expense of the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4365]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 8370
Joined: 1/4/17
|
Re: Disagree...with a caveat
Nov 10, 2020, 10:41 AM
|
|
BTM,
YES ! An each state has the wherewithal to change from the winner-take-all system to a proportional system.
Unfortunately states that are decisively red or blue won't give up their party advantage.
Battleground states might lead the way but then they would be giving up their importance and leverage.
I don't know how we can get to a proportional system, but that would be far more democratic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
This I kind of agree with. But then I’m not a republican
Nov 10, 2020, 10:53 AM
|
|
so I have a confuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
It's that unity thing you been hearing about.***
Nov 10, 2020, 11:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1878]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 1864
Joined: 1/22/12
|
Was the Civil War fought over Slavery or over State's Rights***
Nov 10, 2020, 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 467
|
|
|
50
