Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri says, "I'm philosophically opposed to the federal government taking over elections. It is a bad idea. I'm pretty flexible about the amount of money, but I'm not flexible about a federal takeover of the election process itself." Do you agree? Should the federal government require all states to provide vote-by-mail options or should it be a state-by-state decision?

Question

English

Guest

31 October, 22:36

Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri says, "I'm philosophically opposed to the federal government taking over elections. It is a bad idea. I'm pretty flexible about the amount of money, but I'm not flexible about a federal takeover of the election process itself." Do you agree? Should the federal government require all states to provide vote-by-mail options or should it be a state-by-state decision?

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Timmy · Answer 1

Although this is a personal question that only you can respond, this is an example of a potential answer:

I personally agree with Senator Blunt of Missouri. I also believe that state elections should be a matter that only concerns the state governments. This is because I believe that the separation of powers is one of the most important values of our democracy. This means that the duties of the federal government should be separate from those of state governments. This protects the autonomy of each level of government and ensures that abuses of power are restricted, or non-existent. Therefore, any changes to state elections (including vote-by-mail options) should be decided by the state governments only.