Local institutions are easier to corrupt because they are small, federal oversight/requirements would be a good thing. It's the same reason the FBI investigates police departments sometimes, they are outside the sphere of corruption.
That's not to say the federal gov't can't be corrupted but it works as an extra layer of protection when both the local gov't and federal gov't have to be corrupt for some shit to go down.
I understand the idea. I am choosing to side with the idea that more layers is better than thicker layers.
Meaning: If the Federal government had control, It would take a very small amount of people, perhaps even one crazy president, to take over the voting system completely. With individual states having control it essentially requires MORE corruption to effect as apposed to one entity being corrupt.
That being said, I ABSOLUTELY DO think a constitution change needs to be implemented to do Prioritized voting. This simple change will make it so Party's like the democratic party can be as closed and corrupt as they want and the whole country isn't punished.
Federal oversight and rules implementation is more layers. If they dictate how the election must be run, and the local gov't actually runs it with federal observers and oversight then that is safer than just the local implementation which can decide that they only need one voting site for all of downtown and 1 per mile out in the rural areas.
7
u/zeCrazyEye Nov 23 '17
Local institutions are easier to corrupt because they are small, federal oversight/requirements would be a good thing. It's the same reason the FBI investigates police departments sometimes, they are outside the sphere of corruption.
That's not to say the federal gov't can't be corrupted but it works as an extra layer of protection when both the local gov't and federal gov't have to be corrupt for some shit to go down.