[tyingq]

I think you're missing the point that US states have rights that can't be infringed upon. They are all allowed to make their own types of ballots, allow (or not allow) mail-in voting, decide how many workers to employ for the process, etc. The US government is, by law, not allowed to mess with any of that. Check out how different, for example, Maine's process was this year. They didn't have one winner. They split out electoral votes to two different candidates.

[dragonwriter]

> I think you're missing the point that US states have rights that can't be infringed upon.

Those "rights" (there's a problem with applying that term to states and not people, but its a side issue here) do not include the "right" to run federal elections without oversight by Congress, which has both direct and explicit regulatory power for federal legislative elections under the Constitution, and the Constitutional role of assessing whether electoral votes are properly given when counting them, and has, in fact, has acted based on the latter power to direct states as to what they must do in federal Presidential elections to shield their votes from potential challenge.

[Arnt]

No, I'm not missing that. I mentioned Germany because the sixteen German states have rights too, sufficiently so that it matters for politics in general.

Some German states even partly devolve elections further. There was a minor scandal regarding that last year, when one city chose to deploy some software that broke (and as a result, some votes weren't tallied until many hours later than expected, perhaps >24h). That's the kind of scandal federally devolved elections can have, the kind the Americans should aspire to having.