By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump has advocated for the federal government to “nationalize” the election process, asserting that states are too corrupt to manage elections honestly and that the federal government should intervene. This push comes as the Republican Party faces a slim majority and approaching midterm elections, with Trump expressing a desire for Republicans to “take over” voting procedures in several states. He further stated his intent to implement voter ID requirements for the midterms, regardless of congressional approval, and expressed a belief that Democrats facilitate cheating through lax voting laws.
Read the original article here
The notion that someone might outright invent reasons to fundamentally alter how national elections are conducted is, frankly, a chilling prospect. It conjures images of a leader, facing potential defeat, conjuring justifications out of thin air to cling to power. This isn’t just about a hypothetical scenario; it’s about a deeply held suspicion that the very foundations of our democratic process could be deliberately undermined, not by a breakdown in established procedures, but by the *creation* of new, arbitrary ones.
The core of this idea, as it’s being discussed, revolves around the idea of nationalizing the election process. This suggests a move away from the current system, where states and even counties manage their own elections with varying rules and procedures, towards a centralized, federal control. The concern is that this centralization wouldn’t be driven by a genuine desire for efficiency or security, but rather by a need to create a system that can be manipulated.
What’s particularly alarming is the suggestion that the justification for such a monumental shift wouldn’t be based on any verifiable evidence of widespread systemic failure in current election processes. Instead, it’s posited that these justifications would be fabricated, essentially made up on the spot. This implies a willingness to disregard established facts and procedures, to invent problems that don’t exist, and then present these invented problems as reasons for drastic, sweeping changes.
This kind of approach would fundamentally challenge the legitimacy of any election outcome. If the very rules and their justifications are seen as manufactured, then how can anyone truly trust the results? The process itself becomes suspect, tainted from its inception by the suspicion of artificiality. It’s a recipe for widespread disillusionment and a breakdown of faith in the democratic system.
The very act of fabricating justifications also points to a deeper issue: a potential disregard for the Constitution and the established norms of governance. The idea that someone would simply “make shit up” to justify a move of this magnitude suggests an intent to bypass the deliberative processes, the legal challenges, and the public discourse that are essential to a healthy democracy. It’s about imposing a will, rather than working within the established framework.
Moreover, this hypothetical scenario highlights a recurring pattern of behavior: a resistance to accepting unfavorable outcomes. If an election doesn’t go the way someone desires, the immediate inclination, according to this line of thinking, is not to question one’s own campaign or platform, but to search for, or even invent, evidence of wrongdoing by others. This is a dangerous cycle, as it erodes the very idea of a peaceful transfer of power, a cornerstone of any functioning democracy.
The prospect of nationalizing elections also raises practical concerns about security and abuse. While the current decentralized system has its challenges, it also has checks and balances. A highly centralized federal system, in this context, is feared not as a more secure alternative, but as a more easily abusable one, ripe for manipulation by those in power who are willing to invent reasons to maintain control.
Ultimately, the conversation around making up justifications for nationalizing elections speaks to a profound anxiety about the future of democracy. It’s a fear that the rules of the game can be arbitrarily changed, not through legitimate debate and consensus, but through invention and force of will, leaving the public questioning the very reality of their electoral process.