They're already vulnerable, all together.
> which would effectively put elections under federal control.
They are already under numerous federal laws. Strangely enough, counter to your point, federal laws have been the #1 driving force for allowing more people to vote ("closer to the people"). See: https://www.usa.gov/voting-laws
Elections, in the 21st century, should fall within the range of national defense. Power grids and other types of infrastructure are, why not the democratic infrastructure like elections and voting?
> The last thing we need is nationalized elections. That would make all of our elections vulnerable together.
Or you know, the ability for elections to actually be fixed in a systemic fashion. It's really the only way.
I really don't understand this attitude. To take an example from the software industry, would you rather have your users on one OS, for you to secure, or 20+ different ones, where you need to plug holes independently?
Fix one issue with a voting machine, fix them all, as opposed to just fixing Florida's specific homegrown crap.
State's rights are comparable to redundancy in the software world but really these analogies are strained.
This country has been around for over 200 years. Our elections have worked well, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> Elections, in the 21st century, should fall within the range of national defense. Power grids and other types of infrastructure are, why not the democratic infrastructure like elections and voting?
No, they shouldn't. I want my city, county, and state elections run by my city, county, and state, so that when something goes wrong, I can go to the city, county, or state to see about making it right, and even run for office locally to fix it myself, or go to the state capital at worst--not have to go to Washington, D.C. and complain to some bureaucrat that hasn't even heard of my city and couldn't care less about my state.
> Or you know, the ability for elections to actually be fixed in a systemic fashion. It's really the only way.
Bald assertion.
> I really don't understand this attitude. To take an example from the software industry, would you rather have your users on one OS, for you to secure, or 20+ different ones, where you need to plug holes independently?
You're looking at it the wrong way. What is easier to attack: a homogeneous network in which every machine has the same, known vulnerabilities, or a heterogeneous network in which only subsets of machines have certain vulnerabilities? What is easier to destroy: a forest comprised of a single species with the same vulnerabilities to certain pathogens, or a forest with a variety of species?
Recent history shows the inherent risk of homogeneous networks, e.g. the NotPetya worm that took down global IT infrastructure for the biggest companies in the world in a matter of seconds: https://www.wired.com/story/notpetya-cyberattack-ukraine-rus...
This country was designed around compartmentalization. If one state enacts bad policies, has corrupt government, etc, it doesn't necessarily affect every other state. But when the federal government makes bad decisions and becomes corrupt, it does affect every state.
You want our elections to be more easily compromised, more easily controlled by third parties? Nationalize them. Use the same systems and rules and policies everywhere. Make every election, everywhere, have the same, known flaws and vulnerabilities. Make every election, everywhere, reliant on the slow-moving federal government to fix problems that states and localities could fix independently and quickly.
> Fix one issue with a voting machine, fix them all, as opposed to just fixing Florida's specific homegrown crap.
How about letting Florida worry about fixing Florida's elections, and you fix yours. I don't think you'd like Florida telling you how to run your elections, but that's exactly what you propose in reverse. It's antithetical to liberty.
Doesn't follow; countries can exist for a long time without elections at all, and, a fortiori, without elections that “work well”. Our existence and ability to debate th topic doesn't prove our elections worked well on average over history, or that they've been working well in their most recent form. Or much of anything else.
When we eventually stop having them, then we can revisit this conversation and long for the good old days. Meet you back here in...a few centuries?
State and local governments have been handling their own elections since before the country was founded. This is a good thing, because it keeps elections close to the people, accountable to the people.
The last thing we need is nationalized elections. That would make all of our elections vulnerable together. And that includes federal funding for state and local elections, because federal funding always comes with extensive rules and regulations, which would effectively put elections under federal control.
We need to move more government and accountability closer to the people, not to Washington, D.C.