Constitutional convention and others things that could remove the electoral college

[Friend of Mara]

As everyone who lived through 2016 we know that polls aren't always correct. However if they are accurate we are going to see a blue wave.

2020 Senate Election Forecast

2020 House Forecast

2020 Election Forecast

The 4 ways to make an amendment is as followed

1) 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 ratification by state legislators.
2) 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 ratifications by by states via ratifying conventions.
3) 2/3 of states call for a constitutional convention and ratified by 3/4 state legislators.
4) 2/3 of states call for a constitutional convention and ratified by 3/4 states during a ratifying convention.

Even with a majority in both chambers and a presidency dems does not hold a 2/3 majority in either. Even if they did dems do not control 3/4 of current state governments. Despite abolishing the electoral collage being supported by about 55-65% of voters (depending on year and poll A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote) it still seems unlikely to pass. It is far less popular for republicans than democrats. While I cannot say this for a fact it seems that the EC as well as the power of less populous states overwhelmingly benefit republicans. So it seems unlikely that any amendment like this would pass.

Though calling a constitutional convention would be an interesting turn of events none the less. Do you think that there is any chance that some republican held states would buckle to popular opinion to at least give the vote a shot?

 

[bobhikes]

As everyone who lived through 2016 we know that polls aren't always correct. However if they are accurate we are going to see a blue wave.

2020 Senate Election Forecast

2020 House Forecast

2020 Election Forecast

The 4 ways to make an amendment is as followed

1) 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 ratification by state legislators.
2) 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 ratifications by by states via ratifying conventions.
3) 2/3 of states call for a constitutional convention and ratified by 3/4 state legislators.
4) 2/3 of states call for a constitutional convention and ratified by 3/4 states during a ratifying convention.

Even with a majority in both chambers and a presidency dems does not hold a 2/3 majority in either. Even if they did dems do not control 3/4 of current state governments. Despite abolishing the electoral collage being supported by about 55-65% of voters (depending on year and poll A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote) it still seems unlikely to pass. It is far less popular for republicans than democrats. While I cannot say this for a fact it seems that the EC as well as the power of less populous states overwhelmingly benefit republicans. So it seems unlikely that any amendment like this would pass.

Though calling a constitutional convention would be an interesting turn of events none the less. Do you think that there is any chance that some republican held states would buckle to popular opinion to at least give the vote a shot?

The electoral college is just a distraction from the real problems, same as the supreme court term limits. What needs to happen is to Limit spending and time for political ads for elections. Open up the Election system for multiple parties not just 2 and Limit the terms of a Congressman. These 3 things which neither party will do because it would make the system competitive and would better our democracy.

Electoral college change just changes what states the parties need to focus on to win.
Supreme court change just sets a date on when the justice will change do not impact which party it will be.

Reducing spending and time allowed for politicking. Allows for other groups to be competitive with the Republicans and Democrats.
Term limits forces congress to be more current with the population
Discarding policies blocking 3rd party and independents access to the election process insures representation of more of the population in the process.

 

[pearl]

Reducing spending and time allowed for politicking. Allows for other groups to be competitive with the Republicans and Democrats.
Term limits forces congress to be more current with the population
Discarding policies blocking 3rd party and independents access to the election process insures representation of more of the population in the process.

The first option is only possible if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Citizens United'. Candidates are given a choice to accept 'public money' which taxpayers opt to pay, but if that is accepted they may not accept corporate money. This by itself would allow multiple party affiliation.
As for the electoral college;
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Its ironic that the purpose was to protect against the very election of a 'tyrant' is now being manipulated by the want a be tyrant.

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
Why the Electoral College.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As everyone who lived through 2016 we know that polls aren't always correct. However if they are accurate we are going to see a blue wave.

2020 Senate Election Forecast

2020 House Forecast

2020 Election Forecast

The 4 ways to make an amendment is as followed

1) 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 ratification by state legislators.
2) 2/3 majority in both houses and 3/4 ratifications by by states via ratifying conventions.
3) 2/3 of states call for a constitutional convention and ratified by 3/4 state legislators.
4) 2/3 of states call for a constitutional convention and ratified by 3/4 states during a ratifying convention.

Even with a majority in both chambers and a presidency dems does not hold a 2/3 majority in either. Even if they did dems do not control 3/4 of current state governments. Despite abolishing the electoral collage being supported by about 55-65% of voters (depending on year and poll A majority of Americans continue to favor replacing Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote) it still seems unlikely to pass. It is far less popular for republicans than democrats. While I cannot say this for a fact it seems that the EC as well as the power of less populous states overwhelmingly benefit republicans. So it seems unlikely that any amendment like this would pass.

Though calling a constitutional convention would be an interesting turn of events none the less. Do you think that there is any chance that some republican held states would buckle to popular opinion to at least give the vote a shot?

Im against removing the Electoral College. I'd much rather see term limits for all government positions and the banning of corporate and institutional special interest contributions and influencing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The first option is only possible if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Citizens United'. Candidates are given a choice to accept 'public money' which taxpayers opt to pay, but if that is accepted they may not accept corporate money. This by itself would allow multiple party affiliation.
As for the electoral college;
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Its ironic that the purpose was to protect against the very election of a 'tyrant' is now being manipulated by the want a be tyrant.

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as a check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
Why the Electoral College.

The way to rectify that would be to institute penalties for Electoral voters who cast a vote not reflective of the majority in that state.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Im against removing the Electoral College. I'd much rather see term limits for all government positions and the banning of corporate and institutional special interest contributions and influencing.

Why are you against it? You can do both.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why are you against it? You can do both.

Because like before, it will marginalize less populated states in favor of more densely populated ones.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Because like before, it will marginalize less populated states in favor of more densely populated ones.

States dont matter in national elections. People vote. Now we can simply ignore all but the swing states.