Abolish the ‘Undemocratic’ Electoral College?

[elektra]

Ya think?

Article V of the constitution, ya think

 

[OKTexas]

There are two options under article V, I thought there was only one way. 2/3rds of the states can have a constitutional convention to change the electoral college

And that has never happened and won't now. I can think of at least 25 States that wouldn't even consider it. That would put 2/3rds way out of reach.

.

 

[Robert W]

The EC already disenfranchises millions of voters so that is hardly a valid argument.

Democrats demote states to a very low status. They elevate the Feds to a super high status.

The Electoral college works fine. No reason to demote states ever.

I checked the number of Senators of all states and also representatives.

State senators

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

In the 50 state senates, there are 1,973 state senators.

See also: State representatives
As of December 2, 2024, 1,952 state senators were affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican parties. This total is updated monthly.

 

[para bellum]

Article V of the constitution, ya think

Yes, I read about it somewhere...

I think you should make an effort to understand my post before you leap to any more conclusions...

 

[para bellum]

And that has never happened and won't now. I can think of at least 25 States that wouldn't even consider it. That would put 2/3rds way out of reach.

.

It's not just that you can't get 34 States to petition Congress for an Article V Convention- the Congress would never allow it to happen.

The one thing, more than anything else, that D.C. is deathly afraid of is a Constitutional Convention. If 34 States did call for a Convention, the Congress would sidestep it by passing their own amendment, and sending their version to the States.

They cannot take the risk that the States would get together and reign in their power. They will not chance someone else writing any amendments.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not just that you can't get 34 States to petition Congress for an Article V Convention- the Congress would never allow it to happen.

The one thing, more than anything else, that D.C. is deathly afraid of is a Constitutional Convention. If 34 States did call for a Convention, the Congress would sidestep it by passing their own amendment, and sending their version to the States.

They cannot take the risk that the States would get together and reign in their power. They will not chance someone else writing any amendments.

There is nothing in Article 5 that requires the States to petition congress, they would only go there if they wanted congress to pay for it. The States can hold their own conventions and if 2/3rds agree on language for an amendment, then that proposed amendment can be submitted to all the States for consideration. It only takes 13 States to say no and it's dead.

.

 

[para bellum]

There is nothing in Article 5 that requires the States to petition congress, they would only go there if they wanted congress to pay for it. The States can hold their own conventions and if 2/3rds agree on language for an amendment, then that proposed amendment can be submitted to all the States for consideration. It only takes 13 States to say no and it's dead.

Not quite.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."

Article V specifies "on the application of the Legislatures of 2/3 of the several States". That means some kind of petition to the Congress.

There is nothing anywhere in Article V that talks about "who pays", I don't know where you get that.

There are no rules for the convention, those would be established by the convention itself. IOW, there is no 2/3 requirement to pass a proposed amendment out of a convention, that would be decided at the convention.

The only fixed requirement is 3/4 of the States to ratify.

Now back to what I was saying- if 34 States did petition Congress for a Convention, and Congress refused to call one, I think the States would be free to organize one on their own, without the consent of the Congress. Article V says "shall call", it does not say "may call".

But the language in Article V is clear enough, it's the Congress that is supposed to call the convention.

They have never done that- every time the Constitution has been amended, the Congress has always written and passed the amendment first, and then sent it to the States.

 

[OKTexas]

Not quite.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."

Article V specifies "on the application of the Legislatures of 2/3 of the several States". That means some kind of petition to the Congress.

There is nothing anywhere in Article V that talks about "who pays", I don't know where you get that.

There are no rules for the convention, those would be established by the convention itself. IOW, there is no 2/3 requirement to pass a proposed amendment out of a convention, that would be decided at the convention.

The only fixed requirement is 3/4 of the States to ratify.

Now back to what I was saying- if 34 States did petition Congress for a Convention, and Congress refused to call one, I think the States would be free to organize one on their own, without the consent of the Congress. Article V says "shall call", it does not say "may call".

But the language in Article V is clear enough, it's the Congress that is supposed to call the convention.

They have never done that- every time the Constitution has been amended, the Congress has always written and passed the amendment first, and then sent it to the States.

There is nothing preventing the States getting together for the purpose of proposing an amendment/s, And if 3/4th agree to ratify the proposal it becomes reality and part of the Constitution. They don't need congress, the States are the ultimate sovereign in our form of government. They created the federal government and they have the power to destroy it if they chose. Of course that would require consensus among 3/4ths of the States and that ain't gonna happen.

.

 

[para bellum]

There is nothing preventing the States getting together for the purpose of proposing an amendment/s, And if 3/4th agree to ratify the proposal it becomes reality and part of the Constitution. They don't need congress, the States are the ultimate sovereign in our form of government. They created the federal government and they have the power to destroy it if they chose. Of course that would require consensus among 3/4ths of the States and that ain't gonna happen.

.

I never said there was anything preventing the States from holding a Convention. I said there was a process that is described in Article V, and that process includes petitioning the Congress for a Convention.

I also explained what the Congress would do if that happens, because a Convention of the States is viewed by the Congress as a threat to their power.

I have been advocating for an Article V convention for decades, but I do not think I will see one in my lifetime.

 

[OKTexas]

I never said there was anything preventing the States from holding a Convention. I said there was a process that is described in Article V, and that process includes petitioning the Congress for a Convention.

I also explained what the Congress would do if that happens, because a Convention of the States is viewed by the Congress as a threat to their power.

I have been advocating for an Article V convention for decades, but I do not think I will see one in my lifetime.

Actually that's happened before and congress ignored them. They don't need congress to propose and pass an amendment. The States can do it alone.

.

 

[para bellum]

Actually that's happened before and congress ignored them. They don't need congress to propose and pass an amendment. The States can do it alone.

.

You need to be more specific. What amendment was passed without the Congress?

 

[elektra]

Yes, I read about it somewhere...

I think you should make an effort to understand my post before you leap to any more conclusions...

Stating that amendments to the Constitution requires 2/3 of the states to agree is not leaping to a conclusion.

You did not state that.

 

[para bellum]

Stating that amendments to the Constitution requires 2/3 of the states to agree is not leaping to a conclusion.

You did not state that.

I didn't say it because it isn't true. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify before an amendment takes force.

The amendment that Schumer is offering needs 2/3 of each house of Congress to pass before it can be sent to the States for ratification.

He does not have those votes in the Congress, so the amendment will not move forward.

It is not complicated.

 

[OKTexas]

You need to be more specific. What amendment was passed without the Congress?

Did you miss post 22? I told another member that it's never happened, that doesn't mean it can't. But as divided as the States are, I don't see it happening in my life. But congress did call for ad hoc conventions of the States to get the 21st Amendment passed.

Don't know if you've noticed, I always capitalize "States" because they are the ultimate sovereign. Our Constitution can't be altered without them.

.

 

[elektra]

I didn't say it because it isn't true.

I said states must ratify amendments to the Constitution. You say that is not true. You are wrong.

 

[para bellum]

Did you miss post 22? I told another member that it's never happened, that doesn't mean it can't.

Well I was replying to your post #30 when you told me: "Actually that's happened before and congress ignored them"

So what exactly was you referring to in your reply? I was talking about Article V and the process to petition Congress for a Convention in my post #29.

What specifically in that post are you trying to refute by saying "Actually that's happened before and congress ignored them"???

 

[para bellum]

I said states must ratify amendments to the Constitution. You say that is not true. You are wrong.

That is a lie. Show me the post where I said that.

 

[elektra]

That is a lie. Show me the post where I said that.

I quoted the post. You been hounding my facts like an idiot.

 

[Care4all]

MSN

Senate Democrats are moving to try to abolish the Electoral College after their party suffered defeats up and down the ballot in November’s elections.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the S.J. Res. 121 on Dec. 12, which proposes a Constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College system altogether and replace it with a simple national popular vote system. Senate Democrats Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont sponsored the resolution.

Comment:
The Democrats are cheaters.
They can't win fairly so they want to change the rules.
It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
That will never happen.

FYI
The electoral college ONLY AFFECTS the presidential race, and not any down ballot races, which are won democratically.


---------------

I do not think the electoral college should be eliminated, nor could it be without a constitutional amendment.

But I do believe we should go back to electors distributed proportionately to how their citizens vote for them, and NOT this 'Winner Takes All' elector bulloney!

 

[OKTexas]

Well I was replying to your post #30 when you told me: "Actually that's happened before and congress ignored them"

So what exactly was you referring to in your reply? I was talking about Article V and the process to petition Congress for a Convention in my post #29.

What specifically in that post are you trying to refute by saying "Actually that's happened before and congress ignored them"???

States have asked congress for a convention of the States, congresscritters have asked for a convention of the States, all have been ignore by congressional leadership. The States have the authority to have their own separate convention or have a gathering of the States in a convention. They don't need congress permission to do that.

.