quote:"We thought it would be a good government group," said Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif.), chairman of House Administration subcommittee on
elections, "and it's turned into a far more politicized group than I think any of us imagined."
The empowerment of the EAC was a fundamentally reckless decision, because it concentrates power -- which was designed to be in the hands of many -- and puts it into the hands of a few.
Even if the EAC governance was chosen in a less insane way than by
White House appointment, even if we were able to determine whether the
select few that run this organization are "good" -- it's still bad law, because it changes the careful checks and balances put in place by the Constitution, concentrating power over elections into just a few people.
is referred to in current election legislation, is an undemocratic structure. The founders of our nation realized the importance of STRUCTURAL protections, and explicitly described the human tendency to capitulate to the corruption of power.
Many of the election activists, and unfortunately Rep. Zoe Lofgren as
well, seem to be under the impression that the purpose of reform is to
get "good people" in place. A more accurate framework for what we are
supposed to be doing with reform is to get "sound structures" in place
-- and the EAC is about as top-heavy a structure as you can get, unless you are trying to design a structure that will eventually produce fascism or corrupt governance.