How "Local control" of Voting Undermines Democracy

Lindsay’s excellent suggestion reminds me of the most important lesson that should be drawn from election fiascoes such as WA 2004 and FL 2000: having federal or state-wide elections run be different rules in every county is “local control” fetishism at its most idiotic. I believe that the commerce clause should be construed loosely because I think what level of government should perform what functions should be determined pragmatically, so flexibility should be the paramount concern. Of course, even given this there are many disputes reasonable people can have. I can understand the logic of local control in education, for example: given that teaching involves contestable values, it should be handled by the level of government to the parents. You’ll hell of a time showing that this decentralization actually leads to better outcomes, but it’s a serious argument.

But where voting is concerned, there isn’t even a good argument in theory. A ballot is accurate, or it isn’t; there is not question of values of local expertise involved. Elections should have uniform rules and ballot counting mechanisms, federally mandated and funded, as it’s done in virtually every other democracy. Of course, whatever the Rossi whiner’s brigade will tell you, conservatives will be the biggest obstacle to such reform, because inequities in voting equipment overwhelmingly favor wealthier districts, and hence Republicans. Whatever the political viability, however, the way in which elections are conducted in this country is wholly indefensible.