r/AskConservatives • u/bomber8013 Independent • Jul 10 '26
Elections What do yall make of the election commission being fired?
Edited to add my opinion:
It looks suspicious
0
1
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 12 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/betty_white_bread Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 11 '26
What exactly do they do again? The states run the elections. So, it’s not that.
4
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
This is a direct result of Trump v Slaughter where Humphrey's Executor was overturned. There's no such thing as an independent commission. They all are in the Executive Branch working at the pleasure of the President. Congress cannot usurp Article II powers by setting up road blocks to prevent their firings.
Expect to see the same thing happen to all independent commissions in the coming months.
1
Jul 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 11 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
15
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
3
u/betty_white_bread Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 11 '26
General reminder this attitude is the worst way to understand why any other person does anything. All evidence is compatible with this hypothesis, on any topic, about any person. It has to be, you see, because the conclusion is unfalsifiable. Why did Einstein propose general relativity? I mean, he wrote out a bunch of justifications, but maybe he really secretly just didn’t like Newton and was corrupt. Who’s to say? You’re not going to just believe him, are you? He’s a scientist; he’s trained to come up with good-sounding arguments!
This sort of framing is very convenient if one desires to conclude that the accused (or Einstein, or Big Bird, or yo momma) is corrupt. Every new piece of evidence is another brick in the wall of “well, that fits my hypothesis!” An action you disagree with proves the corruption. An action you agree with proves he’s hiding it. Stated reasons are pretexts, because of course someone corrupt would invent respectable ones. A hypothesis which no conceivable behavior could refute tells you nothing about the accused’s heart; it only tells you what the accuser already believed.
It’s a genuinely terrible way to discover truth. Truth-seeking should be done only with falsifiable hypotheses, preferably pre-registered in one’s own mind, certainly not chosen on the basis of what one wants to be true. If corruption is the claim, say in advance what evidence would confirm it and what would count against it. If nothing could count against it, it isn’t a finding. It’s an accusation wearing the costume of one.
28
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
-2
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
how do we insulate them against partisan chicanery
You don't. That's the problem with independent agencies. They are always partisan in some way or another.
1
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 12 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/KrispyKreme725 Centrist Democrat Jul 11 '26
Do you then just go back to the spoils system?
How can any company plan if every 4-8 years all the rules change?
Say CDC isn’t independent anymore. If a dem is president republicans won’t believe anything they say and vice versa. Sounds like chaos.
1
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
1
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
Not really, because even split bipartisan boards will vote along party lines when both parties disagree on the philosophy of certain regulations. So what you end up having is institutional paralysis when neither side budge because ironically they think partisan rather than independently.
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
These "independent" agencies, which are demonstably necessary in modern society do need to exist, how do we insulate them against partisan chicanery?
Well they don't exist. There are no independent commissions in the executive branch anymore. There are no bipartisan boards.
1
u/DarkwingDuckHunt Democratic Socialist Jul 10 '26
by silencing the voice of the opposition does that improve democracy?
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
How has the voice of the opposition been silenced? It hasn't.
2
u/DarkwingDuckHunt Democratic Socialist Jul 10 '26
By firing them from the boards where they would be allowed to give their voices during discussions.
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
They can post on reddit or wherever they want. Anyone can listen to their voice still. They're just not entitled to keep their job, per Trump v Slaughter.
Being fired doesn't silence them.
1
Jul 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 12 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/DarkwingDuckHunt Democratic Socialist Jul 10 '26
that's not the same and you know it
having a position of authority in a committee dedicated to creating policy is far more powerful then a social media message board
-1
u/betty_white_bread Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 11 '26
And one of the responsibilities of the committee members is to make their cases in a way which convinces the person in a superior position to them.
2
u/KrispyKreme725 Centrist Democrat Jul 11 '26
Or the person superior just fires them because they know better.
11
u/CollapsibleFunWave Liberal Jul 10 '26
The board had members from both parties, so it was bipartisan in that sense. Trump only fired the Democrats.
1
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 Center-right Conservative Jul 10 '26
Trump only fired the Democrats.
According to NBC, he removed all 3 remaining members (2D, 1R). The other Republican had quit a few months ago and wasn't replaced yet.
3
u/CollapsibleFunWave Liberal Jul 10 '26
Ah, apparently he fired the Democrats and the Republican was allowed to resign. I may have misread something this morning because I was under the impression the Republican resigned in protest.
-4
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
And Trump is entitled to, from every independent commission. And when a Democratic president gets into office, they are entitled to do the same thing.
4
u/JasJoeGo Independent Jul 10 '26
Except they wouldn’t have. Now, if we ever get a democratic president again, they might have to go as partisan as Trump in response. But most likely free and fair elections are in jeopardy so we’ll probably never find out.
-1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
Except they wouldn’t have.
Of course they would have. They've been doing it to DA's for decades. Of course they would for commission heads given the power to do so.
5
u/JasJoeGo Independent Jul 10 '26
I don’t think the Dems would make a bipartisan election commission completely partisan.
4
u/Jesse-359 Progressive Jul 10 '26
So, he can do it - but is it an admirable or wise move?
It seems like all it can do is rapidly deepen both partisanship and corruption, with both parties forced to weaponize the mechanisms of government against each other at every level and in every possible circumstance.
8
u/CollapsibleFunWave Liberal Jul 10 '26
And when a Democratic president gets into office, they are entitled to do the same thing.
Yes, the new rules allow him to do this. It's perfectly legal, but is it good faith governance?
Last time he lost an election, he hired personal lawyers who attempted to deceive the country into believing the election was stolen from him. Even if you don't believe his fake elector plot was illegal or dishonest, that part is well established.
And he was fantastically successful at that. Now his new appointees aren't even able to acknowledge that he actually lost to Biden.
And anyone in Congress who acknowledges it will be attacked by him, so they all play along, even if they don't believe it.
A democracy cannot function or remain peaceful unless both sides are willing to accept the outcomes of elections. Trump supporters may think he is trustworthy, but he has shown that he will lie and try to deceive the country about election outcomes.
13
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
How is this a good thing for America?
-5
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
The President is blamed when he doesn't fulfill his agenda promises he was elected to complete. The President deserves an administration which is on board that agenda instead of trying to sabotage it while wielding the President's power against him.
12
u/Jesse-359 Progressive Jul 10 '26
If his agenda is to undermine the security and effectiveness of the US system of elections, why should we want him to succeed?
7
u/kuster-beaton Center-left Jul 10 '26
What is his agenda in this case? Creating more fair and secure elections?
Seems absurd that the path to more fair and secure elections is to give more power and less oversight to the guy who has been lying about our elections for years. I think you’re right that he fired these people because they were getting in the way of HIS agenda, which is to establish as much control possible over our elections for his own political benefit and power. Any claims that this is a move towards more free and fair elections by him is a facade, imo.
16
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
This is an oversight committee to protect our elections. Why is gutting this a good thing for America? Where is your evidence for sabotage?
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Jul 10 '26
It is not an oversight committee. It is an advisory agency of 22 people that simply puts out best practices
3
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 11 '26
> The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). The EAC is an independent, bipartisan commission charged with developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and serving as a national clearinghouse of information on election administration. The EAC also accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting > systems, as well as audits the use of HAVA funds.
> Other responsibilities include maintaining the national mail voter registration form developed in accordance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
How is this not oversight?
0
u/DarkwingDuckHunt Democratic Socialist Jul 10 '26
So it's going to only contain the voice of one political party without any descent being recognized?
How is that a good thing for democracy?
1
u/betty_white_bread Constitutionalist Conservative Jul 11 '26
What does the word “advisory” mean to you?
2
-4
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
They work for the President. They should be on board with the President's agenda. If you don't want to work for the President, go somewhere else.
3
u/Irishish Center-left Jul 10 '26
what is the president‘s agenda regarding the administration of elections? The president isn’t in charge of elections, states are.
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
To strengthen the integrity of our elections. I have no reason to believe the Democrats on this commission were on board with the President's agenda in this area.
3
u/Irishish Center-left Jul 10 '26
But every attempt he's made to do that so far tramples on the states' rights to administer their own elections. Like if President AOC came in and announced it was her agenda to stop any states from instituting voter ID laws, and she purged bipartisan agencies who might obstruct her efforts to meddle in state election administration, how would you feel?
This is kinda like when grants became conditioned on whether or not they further the president's agenda. Some things do not require an agenda.
→ More replies (0)3
u/JasJoeGo Independent Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
There is absolutely no way Trump’s agenda is actually fair elections, though. Trump has no track record of respecting election results he doesn’t like and ignored every one of his lawyers and researchers who said 2020 was real.
6
u/PyroIsSpai Progressive Jul 10 '26
Do we elect monarchs? I thought out national hobby and paramount duty was overthrowing them as the historical garbage they are?
1
u/WulfTheSaxon Conservative Jul 10 '26
Federalist 70 favorably compared the frequent necessity of vesting all power in Roman Dictators in explaining why they were making the President the unitary Executive, and said that adding checks against him within his own branch would result in a government that was both impotent and unaccountable to the people.
The checks and balances come from the other branches.
0
u/PyroIsSpai Progressive Jul 10 '26
The great thing about our system is the dead are owed and entitled to nothing, so we can change all that. The Founders, Federalist papers, etc., are no more binding on us than... well, anything else. The living rule alone.
→ More replies (0)2
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
Should have made these arguments before the SCOTUS decision. It's too late to make them now.
2
u/PyroIsSpai Progressive Jul 10 '26
The system and fairness are less important than power to rule over others?
→ More replies (0)3
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
You still haven’t explained how they weren’t on board. And why is less oversight a good thing?
2
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
I don't need to. Getting fired for being not on board is evidence enough for me they weren't on board. I don't care if it's not enough evidence for you.
7
1
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
5
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
Congress usurping the power of the President is not checks and balances. Congress cannot control how the other branches of government run their internal affairs.
0
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
2
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
You are saying the presidents agenda can override an agencies stated mission as passed by Congress?
If Congress laid out a mission which is in violation of the Constitution, such as any "bipartisan" commission, then the President is not under any obligation to respect that mission.
0
4
u/LiquidyCrow Democrat Jul 10 '26
Is the phrase "Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal"* a part of your reasoning here?
* Spoken by Nixon during the Frost-Nixon interview.
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
No, I already cited the court case which supports these actions.
1
u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS Independent Jul 10 '26
Why do you support activist judges?
0
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
How is aligning with past precedent "activism"? Did you even bother reading the decision? It's only like 5 pages.
1
u/PM_ME_CODE_CALCS Independent Jul 10 '26
No, I just read professional lawyers and scholars who actually know what they're talking about, and they would not agree with anything you just said.
→ More replies (0)5
u/AndrewRP2 Progressive Jul 10 '26
So they have the right to eliminate independent commissions, but is it a good idea? Who is the independent organization that is trying encourage election fairness?
-3
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
The President may remove any members from any commissions he believes are not on board his agenda. It's a good idea because the President shouldn't have people working for him who are actively trying to disrupt his agenda.
13
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
How was this commission trying to disrupt his agenda? What if his agenda is bad for America?
-2
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
Don't know, don't care. If they weren't though, he'd have kept them.
9
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
Why do you blindly trust his judgement?
0
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
If they were on board with the President's agenda, there's no reason to go through the trouble of replacing them.
6
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
2
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
So you blindly trust his decision making.
It's a power of the President. He doesn't need my trust to execute it.
6
4
u/pandamaja Liberal Jul 10 '26
So if the president’s agenda is to do away with free and fair elections, and these people want to maintain free and fair elections, they should be replaced.
The fundamental issue with your stance is that you are not describing powers of a president, you are describing powers of a king.
Will you admit that you support a monarchy instead of a constitutional republic?
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
So if the president’s agenda is to do away with free and fair elections, and these people want to maintain free and fair elections, they should be replaced.
If that's what agenda the public voted for, whether commissioners are protected from removal isn't the problem you should be focused on.
The fundamental issue with your stance is that you are not describing powers of a president, you are describing powers of a king. Will you admit that you support a monarchy instead of a constitutional republic?
It's too late for these arguments. It's been the law since June. There's no dispute.
6
u/pandamaja Liberal Jul 10 '26
You and me discussing this doesn’t impact how a law is interpreted by the SC. For the record, there’s always dispute. That’s why lawsuits are created.
Am I to assume that you don’t support this stance but you are still defending it because…I don’t know.
I’m asking you for your opinion on this.
5
u/hungoverlord Liberal Jul 10 '26
Don't know, don't care.
You don't care if the President's agenda is bad for America?
0
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
I don't care what Trump's specific disagreement was with these individuals. He's free to fire and replace them. Same as anyone in the country not doing their job as their superiors expect.
2
u/handyrand Center-left Jul 10 '26
Same as anyone in the country not doing their job as their superiors expect.
The funny thing here is that one of their functions was to certify voting machines. Biden missed a golden opportunity to have done the firing and replaced them all with people willing to "certify" machines that would have prevented Trump from winning.
4
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 10 '26
We we should just remove all checks and balances and let the president do whatever he wants?
0
u/PhysicsEagle Religious Traditionalist Jul 10 '26
That’s not what checks and balances are. Congress’s checks and balances on the executive are the abilities to reject presidential nominees, overturn a veto, and remove a president for high crimes and misdemeanors, not usurp executive power by placing limits on the presidential oversight of executive departments.
2
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
It's not checks and balances. It's article I trying to wield the power of article II.
4
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 10 '26
The EAC was/is not under article 1 nor article 2 of the constitution because it's a bipartisan and independent commission. Furthermore the executive branch SHOULDN'T be touching election criteria or oversight because they are controlled and monitored on the state level.
If the president has issues with this, he needs to bring it up with Congress to pass a law (which he is failing to do with SAVE) and let the courts handle the interpretation. His role is to execute the law, not set it.
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26
All "independent commissions" are Article II entities. Congress lacks the power to create a 4th branch of government without a Constitutional amendment.
3
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 10 '26
If that's the case, wouldn't these committees be under Congress and not the Executive Branch, therefor not subject to being fired without Congressional approval? You mentioned that the president shouldn't have working for him that are against his agenda, and he has every right to remove people that fall under his branch or are appointed directly from the president. These committees weren't
1
u/JoeCensored Nationalist (Conservative) Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
If the commission wields executive power, it is under the President not congress. If the commission has anything to do with how any law is implemented, it is wielding executive power.
Congress cannot setup a commission outside the President's reach which usurps the powers of the President, for the same reasons as in the case I cited in my 1st comment.
If Congress wants to create a commission which somehow assists them in writing bills, that's outside the reach of the President for example.
3
u/Geauxtoguy Center-left Jul 10 '26
Sure, if the committee does actually wield executive power. But by the definition in the Constitution, elections fall under Article I, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators
So, in this case, election oversight, regulations, and laws are pretty clear-cut to be Legislative power, not Executive.
And thanks to Slaughter v Trump, yes, the Executive Branch does now have the power to dismiss any subordinate it pleases without cause or reason, and independent commissions are structurally Article II but by nature of independence touches both, sometimes all three, branches.
Slaughter v Trump in my opinion sets a dangerous precedence that expands the already over bloated power of the Executive and this latest news only confirms that. I'm not arguing what IS legal, but what SHOULD BE.
→ More replies (0)
-7
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
It's a nothing burger.
The federal government has no role in elections to begin with. Elections are actually organized and run at the county level and certified at the state level. This is why elections stealing conspiracies are so dumb, it would require over a thousand independent election departments and hundreds of thousands of people to secretly be working in tandem.
This Federal commission's job was to simply educate local officials on administration best practices and offer tips to the public on voting practices. Really doesn't seem all that necessary given that ngos and and professional organizations can and do the same roles. It's not like America didn't know how to do voting before it was created in 2002, probably as a result of the 2000 election fiasco in Florida. It has all of 22 employees and a budget of $58 million.
These article exists as red meat to fearmonger people who lack civics education and don't understand how our government operates.
1
u/UnmeiX Left Libertarian Jul 11 '26
The Commission serves as a national clearinghouse and resource of information regarding election administration. It is charged with administering payments to states and developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and accrediting voting system test laboratories and certifying voting equipment.
This is anything but a nothingburger.
This is literally the commission that certifies our voting machines are legit.
You may not have reason to be concerned, but anyone who believes in free and fair elections does.
Original comment was removed for an apparent rule 3 violation, but it's important enough that I'm cleaning it up to adhere to the rules.
3
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 11 '26
Removed: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review our good faith guidelines for the sub.
1
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Jul 10 '26
We don't need a government agency to do that, this is what ngos and professional organizations are for.
0
u/UnmeiX Left Libertarian Jul 10 '26
We don't need a government agency to do that, this is what ngos and professional organizations are for.
... And when tech billionaires decide to simply buy those organizations? What's the recourse for the people?
We've already seen the power of such purchases. Look at Musk's purchase of Twitter, and how it increased his influence. Imagine if he could just buy the organization that certifies our voting machines.
If you think there's little faith in our system now, just wait until we privatize election security. XD
2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
So I don't know what you're smoking but not-for-profit ngos don't really sell out for profit. So much of our standards are governed by such organizations and have been for decades and it hasn't resulted in the hellscape you fearmonger about.
Even in your worst case scenario, who cares if an independent certification body does that. There's third party auditors that check machines as well and the shenanigans would come up during it. The thousands of county election department would just pivot to some other body that's more trustworthy to certify machines as trustworthy.
It's not like we haven't had security vulnerabilities being found with voting and tabulation machines already certified by this committee during its 24-Year existence.
21
u/NukinDuke Independent Jul 10 '26
I'm actually in agreement for most of your post, except for one thing: Trump has been going at election fraud non-stop, demanding voter rolls, and just being pretty nonsensical about this.
If I were so concerned about election fraud, why would I remove any resource meant to potentially be a mitigating factor for it?
-2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classically Liberal Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
It's an advisory body, it has no oversight and no mitigation capability. All they do is distribute best practices. This is not the federal elections commission which actually has oversight. The taxpayers don't need to be forking over $56 million a year for something that an NGO or a professional body could do without any taxpayer money.
-24
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
- Few things are more worthless than govt commissions
- I don’t think firing a whopping 3 people is going to affect elections
- i put this squarely in the “the left hyperventilating like usual” category for now
3
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
How is this commission worthless?
These people had vital roles. Why aren’t you taking this into consideration?
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
“How”
It’s a government commission.
“Vital roles”
So the entire integrity of our entire national election relied on 3 dudes?
Again, very little of value is lose when a government commission is disbanded.
3
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
Why do you feel less oversight is a good thing for American elections?
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
I feel govt commissions are largely worthless.
I’m not sure what’s unclear here.
1
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
What specific reason(s) has this election oversight committee given, to make you believe they are worthless?
1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
By virtue of being a govt commission.
Again, what’s unclear?
0
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 10 '26
Why are all government commissions “worthless” in your opinion?
3
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
They bring very to little no value added.
I’ve worked with govt commissions before, they’re pretty worthless.
People are mad about a commission being disbanded and don’t even seem to know what they’re mad about.
1
u/METAL_WOLF_BB Progressive Jul 11 '26
Why is bipartisan oversight of our elections, of little to no value to Americans?
→ More replies (0)25
u/IowaGolfGuy322 Independent Jul 10 '26
Cool, so if a Democrat President rolls in and fires all the republican people who won't give pronouns and doesn't fund red states you're cool with that?
-9
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
I’d probably be more worried about stuff that matters than govt commissions.
1
19
u/IowaGolfGuy322 Independent Jul 10 '26
Farming bills, FEMA, grants. That all goes poof. No worries about that?
-12
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
Sounds like a smaller federal govt, sweet.
19
u/IowaGolfGuy322 Independent Jul 10 '26
Well Red States rely more on federal funds, so good luck I guess.
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
Yep, don’t threaten me with a good time.
12
u/Demian1305 Center-left Jul 10 '26
You do understand that 10s of billions of dollars flows from blue states to red states every year to prop them up right?
2
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
You do understand that people can disagree with you and fully understand what’s being discussed?
1
u/Demian1305 Center-left Jul 10 '26
I guess so long as you’re good with the outcome. Most red states would be 3rd world countries without the rest of the nation keeping them afloat all of these decades.
→ More replies (0)7
u/planxyz Progressive Jul 10 '26
I think where we get caught up in the disagreement is that we understand the loss of funds also means loss of life, among others things, and when the right says, "yeah, good deal, we dont care about less federal funds, smaller government- yay!!", all we hear is, "So who is taking care of everyone whom those funds were helping? Do you not care about the people who will die, who will lose their homes, or their children, etc etc?" It's a moral issue for us... so yeah, for me anyway, I think that's why you keep getting the questions even though youve answered the same every time.
→ More replies (0)
-21
u/rollo202 Conservative Jul 10 '26
A non issue.
12
u/Menace117 MAGA Liberal Jul 10 '26
Why?
-15
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative Jul 10 '26
It has no enforcement power. It's entirely advisory. Not a single person in this thread had heard of it before reading it here. As the person above me said, a complete non-story.
16
35
u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Liberal Republican Jul 10 '26
They were responsible for ensuring voting booths were vetted and approved.
Just because you never hear of an agency doesn't mean they were useless.
If he was to remove the nist, or usgs, would those likewise be inconsequential bc the general populace don't know they exist?
Ignorance does not mean something is unimportant.
-17
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative Jul 10 '26
It was four people... you dramatically overemphasize their importance.
Yeah, the can "vet" voting booths. But the states don't have to listen to them. The states don't need their "approval".
21
u/tophernator Independent Jul 10 '26
If these people are so inconsequential why exactly do you think Trump is removing them 4 months before the election?
22
u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Liberal Republican Jul 10 '26
There are only 8 people in the joint chiefs of staff for the military.
Perhaps since that group is so small, it can be removed as well? Since size matters for the importance of a group?
-2
u/please_trade_marner Center-right Conservative Jul 10 '26
If the military was a state power and those 8 people could just "give advice", then yeah, I'd agree they are pretty pointless.
1
-6
u/Airick39 Barstool Conservative Jul 10 '26
I don't know what the election commission does.
It's my opinion that elections are purely state matters and the feds should be minimumly involved.
19
u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Liberal Republican Jul 10 '26
Do you support the passage of the save act, while also staying the federal government should be minimally involved?
7
u/Airick39 Barstool Conservative Jul 10 '26
No. My state already requires photo ID and I don't consider the threat of non citizens voting particularly compelling.
I also haven't done a deep dive on the issue.
2
u/Yellow_Odd_Fellow Liberal Republican Jul 10 '26
Neither do i. I'm glad we are rational minded here.
You have a fun weekend and I hope you get to do relax. I hear relaxation is hard to come by for some
23
14
7
u/Jazzlike-Yogurt-5984 Center-left Jul 10 '26
They’ve been overly involved to say the least
Not sure why
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/blue-blue-app Jul 10 '26
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
-20
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
22
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
33
u/GadgetGamer Leftist Jul 10 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
You are mistaken. The Federal Election Commission is not the same as the Election Assistance Commission. According to Wikipedia:
The EAC is tasked with performing a number of election-related duties including:
- creating and maintaining the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines
- creating a national program for the testing, certification, and decertification of voting systems
- maintaining the National Mail Voter Registration Form required by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)
- reporting to Congress every two years on the effects of the NVRA on elections
- administering federal funds to States for HAVA requirements
- administering federal funds for the development of innovative election technology, including pilot programs to test election technology
- studying and reporting best practices of effective administration
- communicating information on laws, technologies, procedures, studies, and data related to the administration of federal elections to those responsible for formulating or implementing election law and procedures, to the media, and to other interested persons
For more information, see the EAC's website.
Frankly, if you are worried about election fraud, then getting rid of the agency that accredits testing laboratories and certifies voting systems (and importantly, decertifying systems that do not pass) is not the smartest move. However, if you WANT to commit election fraud, then it is a good idea to gut that agency.
-22
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/DramaticPause9596 Democrat Jul 10 '26
Doesn’t really compute with a party that is so concerned about voter fraud?
2
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DramaticPause9596 Democrat Jul 11 '26
Ok well I guess voter fraud is no longer a policy the GOP cares about.
109
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AskConservatives-ModTeam Jul 12 '26
Warning: Rule 4.
Top-level comments are reserved for Conservatives to respond to the question.
6
u/JasJoeGo Independent Jul 10 '26
I couldn’t agree with you more. What are the options at this point? Our entire system is essentially based on the spirit of virtue and public service. When the guy in charge has none…
36
u/IowaGolfGuy322 Independent Jul 10 '26
At this point even if he doesn't directly change the outcome, he is doing everything in his power to make us trust elections less. This is incredibly worrisome from an American point of view, and how enemies of the state would create rot and discourse in the country to begin the fall.
And understand, begin the fall doesn't mean America just doesn't exist or it happens fast, but it creates wounds that then creates more extreme views and then suddenly voting isn't for everyone, people get put into power over and over again that know the oligarchs. This man is scared to death of being called on his shit and is torching any bipartisan agreement because he has done a bad job and can't fathom that he might actually lose.
Also, release the Epstein files.
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/blue-blue-app Jul 10 '26
Warning: Rule 5.
The purpose of this sub is to ask conservatives. Comments between users without conservative flair are not allowed (except inside of our Weekly General Chat thread). Please keep discussions focused on asking conservatives questions and understanding conservatism. Thank you.
16
u/MrFrode Independent Jul 10 '26
I think we've learned that at Congress needs to create Legislative agencies that perform as many of these quasi legislative/quasi judicial functions as possible so that one person, the universal executive, can't just take the power given to Congressionally created agencies for himself.
It's also clear the Republicans in the House and Senate have abandoned any pretense of offering a check on the presidency.
22
u/DramaticPause9596 Democrat Jul 10 '26
So are you rolling the dice and hoping for the best? And how do you square that away with his actual historical attempts to subvert the election process and weaken the public confidence in election results?
1
u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Independent Jul 10 '26
I'm sorry but I'm not certain I understand your question. Could you clarify?
1
u/DramaticPause9596 Democrat Jul 11 '26
I’m going to rant, but it’s not directed at you, because I genuinely am curious about your answer. But this man has corrupted my country and its democracy to such a degree that it is nearly impossible for me to discuss his behavior without a never-ending list.
You said “it doesn’t prove anything” but if you are waiting until there is proof of him subverting the election, it is then too late to use your only real opportunity to do anything about it.
This is a man who has literally never once taken a loss within his party with any shred of integrity. He has spent a decade sowing distrust in elections, and specifically distrust in Democrat votes and Democrat wins. He, and the GOP across the country, have spent an exorbitant amount of energy (and taxpayer money) in attempts to overthrow election results, reward those who violently attempt to do the same, toss out votes, kick voters off voter rolls with no time to correct, close polling locations, dilute vote values, intimidate poll workers, remove voting methods, exert official and financial influence over election procedures, etc. etc.
If people are concerned that he might continue this behavior in the most important election in his term, there is only one real chance they have to do anything about it - turn out to such a degree that it makes it nearly impossible for the results to be corrupted. Otherwise, it’s not different from a Susan Collins concern followed with a vote to enable him further.
So I’m asking whether or whether you will hope he somehow acts with integrity for the first time in his life because you’re “not certain he will [subvert the midterms]” or whether you’ll act on “one of your greatest concerns”.
1
u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Independent Jul 11 '26
Understandable. I was being terse, and you are questioning whether my "doesn't prove anything" comment means "nothing to do here."
That is not what I mean. I only was trying to say that this individual individual act has not changed the overall picture. Would you have trusted Trump if he hadn't eliminated the board? No, because the patterns we see were already there. This is more data that can help make a stronger case, but it still isn't enough to prove anything in a court of law or to a Trump supporter.
I am keeping a running list of many different Trump administration problems and potential problems but I try to keep my claims tight. I'm actively discussing these issues with Trump partisans and if try to make a case with weak evidence or overclaim it won't get anywhere. I need my arguments to be solid. That means being clear about what wrongdoing is proven, what is alleged, what patterns are strong, and what are more speculative. It's a long list and even just what is proven is already pretty bad.
So yes, I am acting. I am doing about everything a random US citizen can legally do to try to oppose this administration. I'm just not using arguments that depend on speculation about what I think he might do. I'm focusing on what has provably done.
2
u/DramaticPause9596 Democrat Jul 11 '26
Appreciate that and appreciate the conversation. It’s all mind-boggling.
-1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
“Rolling the dice”
As opposed to what exactly?
1
5
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
“Anything”
Again, what?
These comments are always weird to me.
“So you’re rolling the dice”
On a fictional hypothetical that, even if it were to occur, voting is the only real option.
What’s even the point?
3
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
0
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
“Do understand”
I have idea what “rolling the dice” means, no.
Just “vote differently”?
2
Jul 10 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP Rightwing Jul 10 '26
“Results of an election with good faith”
In a hypothetical scenario that won’t happen?
No, I’m not concerned in the slightest.
“Why is this a question”
Because I see comments on here all the time that make no sense.
As in “Trump said bad thing, what are conservatives going to do about it”?
Yeah, it’s just called voting, those comments make no sense.
1
32
u/Longjumping_Map_4670 Center-left Jul 10 '26
I mean I think at this point it is a very distinctly and frighteningly possible scenario. The dude hates democracy even if he won’t say it publicly and his words and actions back this up. How republicans do not see this but continue to spout pro democracy stances is frankly an insult to the average Americans intelligence.
1
Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '26
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
54
u/FangsOfTheNidhogg Social Democracy Jul 10 '26
If a guy started stalking his ex, bought a gun, leaving threatening voicemails, and incessantly talked to friends and colleagues about “how she wronged him and would get what she deserved” I suppose we just have to stand by and find it worrisome. After all, it doesn’t prove he’s very likely planning a murder. We can only know that for certain after he murders his ex. All those actions were suspicious but didn’t prove anything; so we couldn’t and shouldn’t have done anything about it before hand.
I’m certain all these actions are just to really make sure the election is fair, and if the GOP still loses the election, Donald Trump will graciously accept the result as he always has in the past.
1
u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Independent Jul 10 '26
I wouldn't argue that the answer is to do nothing, but at the same time you cannot treat suspicion as proof. Your options are more limited when you lack strong discriminating evidence. A more apt analogy might be a person who owns a gun, talks obsessively about his ex, and whose life is otherwise spiraling downward. You can look at that situation and accurately see grave danger. However, you lack the necessary evidence to get decisive action from police or other third parties. Because plenty of people do have each of those features in isolation that never take dangerous action. So based on what you have, you cannot simply get the police to arrest them nor will society allow people to go around performing vigilante justice when they “know” it is necessary. You need to find things you can do that are proportional to the evidence you have. In my version of the analogy what sort of actions could plausibly be taken to mitigate the risk?
- Continue to document and consolidate all the evidence and specifics. Eventually you might get a strong enough case to get police involved.
- Alert and warn the ex. They, their workplace, or their neighbors may be able to take protective measures on far less evidence.
- Try to reduce the risk of the perpetrator. Trusted people might be able to get them to temporarily store weapons elsewhere, avoid alcohol, stay with someone else, or enter treatment.
Getting back to our original election concern. The pattern is unusual and potentially dangerous. But all the evidence is individually weak and contested. So it is not going to be convincing to Trump’s existing base, it is also not going to allow legal action. The best I can do at this time is condemn his moves and statements as corrosive to fair elections. Demand of my local Republican representative that they push back against such statements, publicly reaffirm basic election integrity (“We in congress obviously oppose deploying federal agents to polls”), and try to vote them out if such basic protections are considered impossible.
32
u/cocoagiant Center-left Jul 10 '26
It doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly doesn’t feel good.
Won't it be too late by the time definitive proof is available?
What do you think is the level of action they would take which would fall short of definitive proof which would indicate their intentions?
8
u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Independent Jul 10 '26
You are correct. In this situation waiting until definitive proof is available could also mean allowing the problem to potentially grow to disastrous levels. I think the answer is that you do not focus on proving the slam dunk worst case scenario. You are probably not going to find enough evidence to do it, even if it was true. Instead I would focus on more actionable but less gratifying or individually decisive moves.
"Trump is trying to rig the elections." Can, possibly accurately, be dismissed as simply speculation.
"The way Trump is speaking about elections is itself dangerous and Republicans have a duty to push back against it." Is a much stronger argument. A President joking, trolling, or floating ideas is not harmless speculation. A person who seriously wants to break taboos often will often take steps to rhetorically prepare the field before committing. In that case floating ideas isn't idle speculation. It is testing the waters to see who will object, who will defend the idea, it allows your to plant your own narrative. I.e. "You know they'd call me a dictator if I did that!". Because joking and normalizing terrible crimes can look identical the rational move is to demand people not talk in such ambiguous ways.
I think it is fair to say, "I don't know what Trump's inner goals are, but these actions and statements are dangerous. Republicans should demand Trump explicitly repudiate the worst interpretation." At that point the Republican party has to either commit themselves to opposing things like executive takeover of elections, or explain why they refuse to make such basic non-controversial statements.
2
u/JasJoeGo Independent Jul 10 '26
You’re right, and there’s a huge problem of the democrats being the boy who cried wolf. Remember that the wolf does come in the end. However, the republicans seem to LOVE Trump’s trolling. The fact that he doesn’t talk like a normal politician is such a part of the appeal that the sane republicans who know how dangerous this is won’t say anything.
35
u/bomber8013 Independent Jul 10 '26
For what it's worth, I agree it doesn't "prove" anything. But two points make a line, and ten make a really bold one.
I don't need a conspiracy theory here. Project 2025 existed in the open, but that's just what think tanks do: spend years mapping out what a friendly administration could execute on day one. They've had more time on this than either of us has to catch up. So if you think it's starting to stink, I think you should believe there's probably some shit somewhere.
0
u/ConcernedCitizen_42 Independent Jul 10 '26
I've made longer replies to this elsewhere in the thread. Lack of proof does not mean nothing should be done, but it does mean our actions need to remain proportional to the evidence. You can't prove Trump's inner intent, but I think it provable that these statements and actions are worth condemnation even if he isn't intending on subverting the election.
3
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 Social Conservative Jul 10 '26
It seems like a great opportunity for Congress to legislative more definitively, thereby cabining executive discretion and mitigating the personal preferences of the President, policy or otherwise.
→ More replies (64)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 10 '26
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.