For instance, I'm in PA (sigh, although I love where I live), and there are 3 in-person methods: Optical Scan, DRE (Direct Recording Electronic), and Paper Ballots. I voted by Paper Ballot in my rather small little township.
How is this determined state by state? Would it not make sense if in-person voting used the same method everywhere?
States have the right to make these decisions. It's not a federal issue. it's a state issue so it will vary.
Yes. And the Democrats want desperately to put all voting under federal control so they can control things even more.
Don't ever let anybody do that!
Yes, but most of the recent “workarounds” (Covid rules) have been mandated by “Blue State Executives”, NOT the State Legislatures AS REQUIRED by OUR (FEDERAL) CONSTITUTION. DeSantis (Florida) got it right by perfecting EVERY CORRECTIVE MEASURE, and solidifying their validity through the Florida legislature.
What's that got to do with the OP's question?
Thanks. So, why can't they make it uniform throughout each state?
This response is not just for you, it's for anyone that may be wondering this same question. I think it's important that people understand our founding principles and why we run things the way we do.
The United States are just that, a collection of individual state. At our nation's founding each colony became a state and was considered a nation in their own right. They decided to unite together because we were a new country and needed to work together for protection from foreign adversaries and also to ensure commerce among the new states for economic growth.
After about 8 years of operating under the Articles of Confederation, and realizing how many ugly flaws there were with the document, the states convened to amend the articles and once gathered decided to create a whole new constitution instead.
Without getting long winded on this, the Founding Father's greatest concern when forming the US Constitution was an "all powerful centralized government." They feared this the most because it would lead towards government tyranny. Government tyranny was so bad under King George III, that it was the very reason that the colonies declared their independence and started the Revolutionary War.
The US Constitution was written to declare very specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Things like national defense, a uniform currency, international trade deals and treaties, and interstate commerce as some examples.
Importantly, ALL other powers were "reserved for the States, or The People."
This is why Roe vs Wade was overturned. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion, so that makes the decision on that "reserved for the States."
There is tremendous wisdom in this thinking. Think about how different states handled the covid plandemic. Think about how different states handle wokeism, education, and healthcare. There are many reasons that this sort of state diversity protects the citizens of the United States. The more uniform things are, the more tyranny, the more tyranny, the more we lose our freedoms.
Every state has its own constitution and autonomy. Every state gets to decide how it wants to select political representatives for Washington DC because every state is unique. What works in California or New York sure as hell won't work for middle America and visa versa.
This is also why the electoral college is so important. The electoral college balances two things. Equal state's rights. Meaning every state, regardless of size or population has two senators so that every state in the union is represented equally in DC. The states get equal representation in DC based on their population size with the House of Representatives. This ensures that larger populated states have more representation because they have more people. It's why California has 45 reps and Wyoming has 1.
The electoral college value for each state is based on a combination of these two representative systems.
Sometimes you'll hear people say presidential elections should be based on popularity alone. The problem with this is that several cities alone could control the national vote, and thus national laws, based on their concentrated populations. Urban dwellers would dictate to rural dwellers in perpetuity.
There is probably nothing more important to keeping our states unique and autonomous than for each state to decide on their own how they want to be represented in Washington DC. Each state coming up with their own process for electing their national representatives is very strongly in line with our founding principles. This philosophy is one of the reasons the USA has lasted so long.
When you consider how much power DC has taken from the states, and the people, over 246 years via laws, taxation and printing trillions of dollars, we are no longer the uniquely independent states that we were at our founding. Federal government bloat has gotten so big I don't think its a stretch to say we are about to implode as a nation from this burden.
The best way to keep our nation strong and thriving is to take as much power away from the federal government as possible and return it to the states. This starts with each state deciding on their own how they want to be represented in DC.
You are awesome
u/#trumpflag
Thank you, sincerely. I should have paid more attention in Civics class eons ago but preferred World History.
I guess I'm just not grasping it completely as to why each state cannot enact a state-wide chosen method of in-person voting.
Would, by chance, the Elections Clause come into play? The Clause directs states to make regulations for the time, place, and manner of congressional elections, but it also states Congress has the right to supersede. There are some recent, interesting updates on this Clause. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/independent-state-legislature-theory-explained
And interestingly, the senators used to be chosen by the individual state legislatures. That was changed when the Constitution was amended for that purpose about 100 years ago. But I often wonder if it was the wise thing to do. If state legislatures still chose the senators, we would likely have a majority of republicans in the senate.
This is important US history for sure. Why are they continually disregarding it and not learning from it?
Well, you have to wrap your head around something that is very unpleasant. Some people are evil.
This topic was very much a big deal in late 2020 and early 2021 as Trump was seeking to stop the steal. This is the main reason that Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis made presentations to all of the battleground state legislatures before January 6th.
State legislatures have plenary power over the process of electing federal representatives in the house and senate. They have sole power over how elections in each state are operated.
This article is an interesting background and discussion and your specific question. It covers concerns states had and a concern that Alexander Hamilton had on the dissolution of the US Government.
Will we ever learn again from our Founding Fathers?
I highly recommend "Books That Matter: The Federalist Papers" by Joseph Hoffmann.
We can learn every day from our Founding Father's by reading their own words.
Thank you! I just placed it on my reading list of books to purchase.
And interestingly, the senators used to be chosen by the individual state legislatures. That was changed when the Constitution was amended for that purpose about 100 years ago. But I often wonder if it was the wise thing to do. If state legislatures still chose the senators, we would likely have a majority of republicans in the senate.
Very good points.
We currently have a majority of states that are Republican but I suppose this could ebb and flow over time.
Because senators are elected individually and staggered every 6 years, unlike congress, who 100% run for office every two years, there is a certain level of stability in the senate that exists. Only one third are up for elections every 6 years. Often times states are divided with one dem one republican, that can also provide some stability. It's a much slower moving transition.
I like to think this is a good thing, but they also bog things down a lot. The biggest problem is lack of term limits. The senators get too much power, are often times bought and paid for, and really don't represent the people very well in my opinion.
No, the people seem to be the least concern to the politicians. Perhaps we should all pool what little money we have left and get ourself a 'people's lobbyist.'
Excellent and true point. Thank you. I'm learning a lot from the replies.
Thank you and agree.
Do you mean, why can't all 50 states agree on how to do things so that it's the same everywhere in the country?
Well, now I have re-phrased it a bit since reading all of the replies. Why can't each state determine its own single method for in-person voting - electronic, write-in, whatever - instead of having different methods all over the state?
The state chooses the rules… if they aren’t followed someone has to enforce those rules… if they don’t we are in this situation
Oh, I see. Well my understanding is that there shouldn't be different methods in different areas of the state.. I mean, they may offer a variety of methods, as you mentioned in your OP, but it shouldn't be different choices in different counties within the state. I would think it would have to be uniform throughout the state, so that does seem weird. Your secretary of state oversees the elections, so you could call them tomorrow to find out. I hope you'll let us know what you learn if you do.
You are correct. Only the state legislatures can set the election laws for the state. Counties cannot legally come up with their own ideas. Not saying they don't break the law and do it. But the law is the law and counties don't write laws. The US Constitution does not give counties the authority to do so.
One caveat. If the state legislatures write a law that gives counties the authority to come up with their own system, then the counties could do so because it is legally authorized by the state legislature. Another example of how each state can do their own thing.
I just read orangetastic's response and it does make sense to me, so maybe there are differences based on the various needs of different counties. I never knew that. Interesting!
Our founding fathers established a constitutional republic that gave the states the power to govern their state independant of the federal government. The governor of your state should be more powerful than the president, and is in some states that are still following the constitution i. e. Florida, S. Dakota. The Federal government was only to provide for the defense of the union and to settle disputes among the states. The President should be the commander in chief of the federal militia. The president should be an established veteran such as a General or naval admiral, not a politician or actor. This is one example of how far from our constitution we have strayed. Didn't stay at a holiday Inn express last night, but am so old that they still taught us basic civics in grade school.
The US constitution grants authority for making election rules to the states, individually. The federal govt. does not have constitutional authority to set, or dictate any election rules beyond the rules stated in the constitution.
State v federal is a huge deal in the constitution