Hacker News Reader

Comment by ShakataGaNai | Hacker News Reader

They're making sure they can vote... but yet no one has worked to make sure all of the American people can vote safely (Read also: mail in ballots for everyone).

View on HN

The constitution leaves a lot of details about voting to the states. This would probably require an amendment. A power grab like that from the federal government would probably be turned down by even blue states, especially considering the current president.

It doesn’t need to be a power-grab (“We’re taking over the election to make sure it’s done right”). In all likelihood it would be some sort of funding incentive (“If you resolve to do vote-by-mail, we’ll give you the money to hire people and buy equipment to do it, and even throw in some money for infrastructure as a cherry on top”).

And further, this is how the federal government governs in the vast majority of cases. Sure, it doesn't have the ability to directly mandate what states do, but it does have the carrot-and-stick.

The problem with this approach is that it leaves a patchwork solution and still leaves the most disenfranchised out of the running, because ideology trumps free money. See: ACA Medicare expansion.

That still fractures the ideologues and allows you to defeat them in detail. I would consider it a win if Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Iowa all adopted voter enfranchisement as a policy.

Not always... I think you underestimate the extent to which this sort of approach underlies most federal government rule making. Consider the drinking age of 21 - that is a state-by-state law and yet somehow universal in the United States.

Perfect isn't the enemy of good. Let's use the patchwork solution on our journey to a better one. (As long as it's actually an improvement!)

I agree that this would be a safer, softer approach, but at the end of the day, fostering dependence is itself just another form of a power-grab.

A lot of states already do it. I think all we need to do is get the POTUS to publicly shame any remaining holdouts. It's not that expensive, so it wouldn't likely present a hardship for states to implement, so a little push in the right direction may be enough.

POTUS and the GOP are against it because opening up voting access means they lose elections

Current POTUS has come out in opposition to vote-by-mail. Why would he want to be involved in shaming states?

AFAIK they all already have to support vote-by-mail for various reasons (the military, if nothing else) so it wouldn't be an introduction of a new program, but an expansion of an existing one. Which, yes, might add costs, but it's not a wholly new process for any state, I think.

Mail-in ballots with voter-id is supported by the right. Any wonder why the left doesn't?

Definitely not universally supported:

> Now, mail ballots — they cheat. Okay? People cheat. Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they’re cheaters. They go and collect them. They’re fraudulent in many cases.

- President Trump

A republican senate would never allow this.

If everyone votes, Republicans would lose in a landslide. They understand this, which is why gerrymandering is as pervasive as it is (democrats also do it, to a far, far lesser extent.) Trump himself said that if we allowed vote by mail, "you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again." (which is interesting because it's true (not literally, but spiritually) and also because you're not supposed to admit that.)

The Republican party is notable for its sheer nihilism. They care entirely about power, which, at the end of the day, is what politics is about. Democrats tend to forget that you need to win elections to pass things. Being "right" (for their definition) is almost irrelevant.

None of this is a comment on who is right or wrong or whatever[1]. Politics is fascinating to watch in its own right.

[1]: vs. something to the effect of "fuck trump and anyone who stands with him", for example.

He's saying that alluding to the leftist extremist tampering with votes. It's an easy narrative to sell to his core after the meltdowns post-2016 and the refusal to acknowledge him as president

Reply on news.ycombinator.com