Sure... let's trust bureaucracy that consistently outsources election security to third parties who then claim that the process is proprietary. Might as well outsource the Federal Reserve and SEC to Chase and Wells Fargo while we're at it and believe everything they do is fair and balanced.
While I agree with your point, YSK that your examples don't support it.
Congress does outsource the Fed to the big banks, including Chase and Wells. [1] That's how the US Federal Reserve system works. Congress (through its appointed board of governors) sets goals, and the regional privately incorporated Federal Reserve Banks act towards those goals at their own discretion. The Regional Feds pay taxes, own property, etc just like any other private corporation. Principal shareholders are the biggest banks, including Chase, Wells, Goldman, Bank of America, etc. Apart from the power of the position, the banks profit by the mechanism of "printing money" in the US: Congress creates new bonds and treasury notes and gives them to the Feds, whose shareholders earn interest and fees on those bonds/T-bills. You would not be the first to worry that this is the fox guarding the hen house.
The SEC however, is a government organization... which outsources the bulk of its regulatory responsibilities to a private association of stock exchanges and broker-dealer banks (including Chase and Wells) called FINRA. [2] The principle of "self-regulation" has been a cornerstone of the SEC since its founding. Here, too, there is considerable debate about whether self-regulation is a good idea in the age of private exchanges, dark pools, rapidly-multiplying derivatives, etc.
I don't know what this does to your impression of the Fed or the SEC being fair and balanced. But you should definitely think about it every time you see discussion of the unequal impact of monetary policy, or a million dollar fine for an SEC violation worth billions.
What’s wrong with us: Pork barrel politics, corruption, money being considered speech, etc.
This is why campaign finance reform is probably my top issue as a voter. It’s just disappointing to have the two main political parties dominate to such an extent that it feels like there’s no reasonable choices WRT voting.
Why don’t we require voters to show ID? It seems the system is flawed from the very beginning, there is little oversight and too much trust in local “officials”.
Because in the US the people in charge of issuing suitable state ID have no interest in making it cheap and easy for all eligible voters to obtain such ID.
In fact, in many cases at around the same time they institute voter ID requirements they also reduce the number of places one can go to get ID, with most of the reductions coming to places that mostly serve minority populations.
Not quite. The fee for the ID itself might be free, but to get that ID you often to have to present an application and supporting documents in person at a place that can issue the ID.
The supporting documents, such as getting a copy of your birth certificate, often cost money. It often requires significant travel to get to an office that can issue the ID. When the office is in a different city or county, there is often poor public transportation to it making it even harder on those who do not have cars. The offices that can issue ID often are only open on weekdays and only during business hours, meaning many people have to take unpaid time off from work to go.
One can easily blow a whole day on this, or more if there is a long wait at the ID office, assuming that they even can get time off work for it.
A "free" ID ends up costing many people somewhere in the $75-175 range due to document fees, transportation costs, and waiting time.
In Canada we can vote without ID by declaring our name/address and having a friend/family member from the same district vouch that we are eligible to vote.
I don’t know enough about the Amish to know either way, but I do think that someone’s rights shouldn’t be predicated on their historical participation.
