Let's play a game

@wildgrass said
I don't know if it's true but lots of people are saying it: this post is on point. The US election system demands anonymity of votes and a trust in state governments to run elections as they see fit.

That numbers are revealed doesn’t break anonimity.

And I’m not sure if a country wide election should be up to provincies (or States) as they see fit.
Surely you’d want one voting system?

@shavixmir said
That numbers are revealed doesn’t break anonimity.

And I’m not sure if a country wide election should be up to provincies (or States) as they see fit.
Surely you’d want one voting system?

You're right. This particular clause is designed to evade the idea of a national popular vote for President. My bad.

Regarding the national voting system, there are nation-wide rules for the big things as interpreted in the US Constitution. Citizenship, age requirements, access to voter registration, and fair treatment of all candidates.

But I think it's pretty clear that (as long as we ignore the bloviating rhetoric) the state-run elections worked very well in this latest US presidential election. One can envision a scenario in which a president is predicted to lose an election and begins to work with his Senate majority colleagues from Washington DC to enact new election laws that tip the balance in his favor. This would lead to a break down of trust in elections. By allowing States to make their own decisions on the details we eliminate the possibility that leaders can wrest powers from states in the run-up to elections.

@wildgrass said
You're right. This particular clause is designed to evade the idea of a national popular vote for President. My bad.

Regarding the national voting system, there are nation-wide rules for the big things as interpreted in the US Constitution. Citizenship, age requirements, access to voter registration, and fair treatment of all candidates.

But I think it's pretty clear ...[text shortened]... s we eliminate the possibility that leaders can wrest powers from states in the run-up to elections.

"But I think it's pretty clear that (as long as we ignore the bloviating rhetoric) the state-run elections worked very well in this latest US presidential election"
Which is why the GOP are working hard to change the rules.

"By allowing States to make their own decisions on the details we eliminate the possibility that leaders can wrest powers from states in the run-up to elections."
Or you allow GOP majority states to just dictate that that they don't need to be transparent about actual voting numbers or that black people don't need to vote early or that you can only vote on tuesday, from 2pm to 3pm, at just one polling station, while requiring a passport, driver's licence and an NRA membership card.

@zahlanzi said
"But I think it's pretty clear that (as long as we ignore the bloviating rhetoric) the state-run elections worked very well in this latest US presidential election"
Which is why the GOP are working hard to change the rules.

"By allowing States to make their own decisions on the details we eliminate the possibility that leaders can wrest powers from states in the run-up t ...[text shortened]... t just one polling station, while requiring a passport, driver's licence and an NRA membership card.

Basically - yes. It is not perfect, but the decentralized system prevents top-down changes to voting rules that could swing elections. I think it's better than an alternative in which a sitting President and willing Senate could legitimately change laws to rig a national election in their favor.

The abolition of poll taxes prevents several of the possible voting restrictions you describe.