Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
You never answered my question.

"Ok, suppose we've already nationalized the elections like you propose. In the swing states that Trump won the "Biden Election Czar" claims that votes were disenfranchised because of id laws and awards the presidency to Harris. Are you ok with that?"

Nationalizing elections seems great when your guy has power but not so great when the opposition has power. Your guy can mandate voter ids but the opposition can mandate no voter ids just as easily.

Also since we have the electoral college it doesn't really matter that much if a state is committing fraud because most of the time a blue state is going to go blue whether they cheat or not. If Oregon was a red state they're most likely to result in a red outcome whether they cheat or not.

Here's another question for you. Do you think the federal government should also determine how a state should hold an election to secede?
And I need to add, your entire premise is a fallacy.
The left has never let a lack of precedent stop them from doing anything, if they want to outlaw voter ID or appoint an election czar to overturn elections by fiat they will do it, the only thing that stops them is whether they think they can get away with it or not.
The left's entire strategy is to do unprecedented things, that's why they have won so much and why the people huddling in a corner worried about setting precedents instead of whether something is the right thing to do have lost so much.