Should, and can, the USA get a centralized federal voting bureau?

[HEyHEY]

Up here Elections Canada sets the rules for the whole country. It makes the whole process simple and uniform. Provincial elections are controlled by the provinces though. It seems strange to me that in some states felons can vote and in some they can't in a federal election... seems like a perversion of rights.

Should the US do this? And can you? I know you're set up differently.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. I have thought of that also.

The way I figure it, if the feds can run Social Security with relatively few (am I wrong?) foul-ups, then why not the elections?

[aquart]

2. Dear God, NO.

Talk about making a gift to the next Karl Rove.

[Jamastiene]

3. I wish we could have uniform standards for voting and how votes are counted here.

I am against taking away voting rights just because someone is a convicted felon though. Inalienable means inalienable.

[AndyTiedye]

4. If Such a System Had Been In Place, We NEVER Would Have Been Able to Vote Them Out

Such a centralized voting bureau would have been packed with people like Blackwell
and they would have been able to steal elections for the Repiggies forever.

[bertman]

5. My understanding is that there's huge opposition to this from both parties because

it takes away a lot of power from the state and local election boards.

Right now there are a gazillion different rules, regs and boards that determine who can vote, where, when, how, for which party, blah, blah, ad infinitum.

It's a fucked up system but it's going to take some serious ass-kicking to change it.

Ain't democracy grand??

Those DUers who attribute JFK's victory over Nixon to the deceased voters in Cook County, Illinois, will probably see that as a good byproduct of a bad system; whereas, the '00 and '04 elections and the shenanigans from the '08 elections should have provided us the incentive to fix this mess once and for all. Just my $.02 worth.

[HEyHEY]

6. Up here there's a simple rule

Every Canadian has the right to vote, period. You register, then you go vote in your riding. I don't get why this can't work in the USA.

[MiniMe]

7. It is a state's rights issue

They can come up with standards and encourage states to abide by it, but it would be the state's choice.

[stillcool]

9. and many states have legislated..

paper ballots and automatic standard recounts after every election. I think it should remain a state issue as well, because that is the only way progress will be made. Everything the federal government touches turns to shit, and I have zero faith that a new President can turn back the tide on so very much that is corrupt about our federal government and all of it's agencies. Diane Feinstein's venture into legislating 'improvements' in our electoral system was proof enough to me.

[Statistical]

8. Constitution says NO

Selection of electors is up to the State and can be done by any means devised by the State.

A state technically could hold NO election and just have the Govenor appoint Electors.
A state could use the coin flip from Super Bowl to decide which party gets to select Electors (Heads=Dems, Tails=Rep)

Now I am not saying a State will or should do that but the Constitution is clear.

Elections are a States Rights issue.

What "could" happen would be for states to get together and have a system where they agree on some centralized system (for participating states). The Feds could even step in and provide $$$ as an incentive.

The Feds forcing states to do this the "fed way" totally unconstitutional.

[Vincardog]

10. Bingo right in one "The Feds forcing states to do this the "fed way" totally unconstitutional."