View Single Post
  #10    
Old June 25th, 2013 (01:59 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler
naughty biscotti
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANARCHit3cht View Post
While this might not be a morally sound thing, I do agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. As what are supposed to be independent states, we should be governing ourselves. The Federal Government is merely meant to be the string that binds us all together. As history has proven, even with the minority votes bogged down, progress is still made in the proper direction--perhaps all the more so in the face of such adverse conditions.
I'm not too good with American politics, but I can say here that that's just one opinion. There are many opinions about what the federal government and the nature of the states should be. I don't know if the US would be the same if the states were treated as supposedly independent states. For one, Texas, New York, and California would probably the only states with any international relevance <-- okay that's kinda off topic, but what I'm trying to say is that the federal government, to me, is what gives the US its greatness today. I'm not taking this too seriously, just pointing out that there are many, prominent, and to me valid visions of the United States of America (all subject to their own justification, but you know what I mean).

I don't know how wise it would be to "allow the states decide" election policy that can affect national elections. That just doesn't sound right. I read Mr. X's article and a lot of the problems seem to have to do with gerrymandering. I dunno about the US, but in Canada elections are handed to a non-partisan government agency and as a result gerrymandering isn't really a problem. Nobody is going to redistrict a province/territory whenever they get into power because the existing districts are "unfair". You also don't have ridiculous acts of inaccessible ballot stations either. Elections Canada runs the entirety of federal elections and it only make sense that federal elections have one standard.

Besides, isn't the reason the federal government is intervening in this case is protecting the individual right to vote? I thought protection of the individual was the highest virtue an American could hope for. So why should states be given more power when that level of government has historically and continually demonstrated that it would allow for such discrimination against the individual? The irony is that some of the founders favoured a decentralized government to prevent an over-reaching federal government's tyranny over the individual, but the fed has to step in because the it's the state level that's causing the tyranny, not the federal government. While I can see why a weak central government can be appealing, I don't know why it would be appealing in this case.
__________________
Axeliira. ugh so late
Reply With Quote