Some legitimate problems with U.S. voting system | READER COMMENTARY

With a half-century involvement in the political and legislative process, I took note of Eric Heavner’s recent commentary warning of a “vulnerable” election system that “enables” the problems of Jan. 6, 2021 (“The real lesson from Jan. 6, 2021: Our election system is vulnerable,” Jan. 4). I agree that “the democratic rules adopted to allow voters a greater role in choosing a president” are problematic. But Heavner fails to acknowledge that first, our system can’t be audited; second, vote-by-mail produces ballot harvesting irregularities; or third, political factions have successfully blocked a universal voter identification requirement.

The dictionary defines the term “enable” as “to provide with the means or opportunity,” and “to make possible, practical,” and “to cause to operate” and “to give legal power, capacity, or sanction to.” Heavener doesn’t mention constitutional processes, but rather political ones.

Heavner references Federalist 68 and “tumult and disorder.”  Alexander Hamilton defends the extended election process itself as being protective. He concludes that the head of the executive branch “should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.” Given that 75 million-plus votes went to reelect Donald Trump, perhaps former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser deserve smackdowns for refusing Trump’s timely request for additional National Guard coverage.

Heavner observes how presidents are elected in “most democratic countries.” Problem is, beyond following a one-person/one-vote model, America is not a “democratic country” at all. The Federalist Papers make this argument over and over. Our operating model is that of a constitutional republic of sovereign states. We have a federal, not national, government. Federalism is a formal power sharing between the states and the central government.

It’s appropriate that Heavner carefully avoids the term “insurrection” except for creative attempts to activate the 14th Amendment. We’ll let the courts finish that one. Beyond that, I would add that politics always plays a factor. And there’s ample evidence against both sides.

— Roberta Schlechter, Portland, Oregon

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.