It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution: The Electoral College is safe

[The2ndAmendment]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.


*edit*

If the wiki page is correct, it appears 13 have already passed legislation, and there are 15 more with legislation pending.

If that all passes, it will be 28 states who will do this. At 13 states, that is 184 electoral votes which is 68% of the 270 needed. If the others pass it as well, that should be pretty close to bypassing the EC altogether.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

 

[Wyatt earp]

How many topics are we going to have on this? quit being an attention whore like the liberals on here.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

Again, this is just something I've heard about in the news, and if the wiki page I linked in my edit is correct, it appears 13 states have enacted it and there are 15 more states trying to get it passed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

What's ironic about their proposition is that, they feel the winner take all stance, the winner of the popular vote in each state giving all of those electoral votes to one candidate, is the problem. So, the proposed idea is to give all of the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner....which is still a winner take all system.

 

[candycorn]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

Two of the states (NE and ME) do not have a winner-take-all system. So there is precedent for a state to craft their own methodology of awarding electoral votes.

Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votesto the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular votewinner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). ... A split has occurred once in each of these states.

However, in each of those states, the leading vote-getter in the congressional district gets the electoral vote. What some states are talking about is ignoring whatever the voters in their state decide and wait for the nation-wide results. Meaning that if Utah (just an example) voters vote 100% for Jane Doe but Jane Smith wins the national popular vote, Utah's electoral votes would go to Smith; not Doe.

I don't see how that could be legal. But then again, we just had an investigation into the Trump campaign where the head of the Trump campaign wasn't asked a single question by investigators....

Who knows anymore?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.


*edit*

If the wiki page is correct, it appears 13 have already passed legislation, and there are 15 more with legislation pending.

If that all passes, it will be 28 states who will do this. At 13 states, that is 184 electoral votes which is 68% of the 270 needed. If the others pass it as well, that should be pretty close to bypassing the EC altogether.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Wrong:

It's a violation of Article I, Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

End of Story.

Article V, Amending the Constitution, is the only way to change the Electoral College.

If Dems try to push this through and ignore Article V (thereby making California and New York the ones who choose the President until the end of time), you can guarantee there will be secession, civil war, and a very little left of the Union when it's over.

Dangerous and seditious partisan coups of this magnitude are precisely why the Second Amendment exists

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

The EC vote does not take place till more than a month after the election.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong:

It's a violation of Article I, Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

End of Story.

Article V, Amending the Constitution, is the only way to change the Electoral College.

If Dems try to push this through and ignore Article V (thereby making California and New York the ones who choose the President until the end of time), you can guarantee there will be secession, civil war, and a very little left of the Union when it's over.

nice try, but no.

 

[ColonelAngus]

How many topics are we going to have on this? quit being an attention whore like the liberals on here.

Yea, stop making bear click on these threads and post!

Come on, now!

 

[The Original Tree]

As I have told you this is an attempt right now to completely change the way The Electoral College votes are Distributed. Right now The Left does not have the votes to completely overturn The EC so they are undermining it.

Example:

The initiative they have put forth in Ohio and elsewhere if it were in place in 2016 means that despite Trump winning Ohio all of Ohio’s EC Votes would have went to Clinton instead. Now you know why they want open borders voting rights for illegals and want The President elected solely on The Popular vote.

Essentially it is a way to Steal EC votes from The Midwest and give them to The East Coast and West Coast making California and New York Defacto Dictators over the entire country when it comes To National Elections!

What they tried in 2016 is to water down The EC by running 2,000 presidential candidates in all 50 states.

Add in millions of illegals flooding the country, Dems letting them vote, and Midwestern States will be irrelevant and without a voice in National Politics!

What they are trying for 2020 is to award a state’s EC votes, even if they votes for an “R” to The Dem Candidate if they win The Popular Vote.

This means if this were in place in 2016, that the 33 States who voted for Trump will have had their vote nullified and they would have been forced to throw all their EC votes to Clinton who only won 17 States.

 

[my2¢]

ThisIsMe nails it in post #5. If enough states enter into an agreement to have their electors cast votes for the winner of the national popular vote, there is nothing in the constitution nor the nation's law that prevents it. Thus no Constitutional amendment is required for such a change.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.


*edit*

If the wiki page is correct, it appears 13 have already passed legislation, and there are 15 more with legislation pending.

If that all passes, it will be 28 states who will do this. At 13 states, that is 184 electoral votes which is 68% of the 270 needed. If the others pass it as well, that should be pretty close to bypassing the EC altogether.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Wrong:

It's a violation of Article I, Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

End of Story.

Article V, Amending the Constitution, is the only way to change the Electoral College.

If Dems try to push this through and ignore Article V (thereby making California and New York the ones who choose the President until the end of time), you can guarantee there will be secession, civil war, and a very little left of the Union when it's over.

Dangerous and seditious partisan coups of this magnitude are precisely why the Second Amendment exists

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...

this is the section of article 2 section 1 they are using to justify this change.

 

[candycorn]

ThisIsMe nails it in post #5. If enough states enter into an agreement to have their electors cast votes for the winner of the national popular vote, there is nothing in the constitution nor the nation's law that prevents it. Thus no Constitutional amendment is required for such a change.

I tend to agree.

But if you're Jane Doe, you live in OK City, OK is won by Trump 60-40 in 2020.... don't you think Jane would have a case if OK's electoral votes went to Kamala Harris?

I do. It seems incredibly unfair to Jane.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

ThisIsMe nails it in post #5. If enough states enter into an agreement to have their electors cast votes for the winner of the national popular vote, there is nothing in the constitution nor the nation's law that prevents it. Thus no Constitutional amendment is required for such a change.

United States Constitution: Article I, Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Doesn't matter what's in the compact. Any political compact is automatically null and void, regardless of content. The only recognized compacts are border compacts and commercial compacts.

 

[Indeependent]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

Two of the states (NE and ME) do not have a winner-take-all system. So there is precedent for a state to craft their own methodology of awarding electoral votes.

Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votesto the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular votewinner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). ... A split has occurred once in each of these states.

However, in each of those states, the leading vote-getter in the congressional district gets the electoral vote. What some states are talking about is ignoring whatever the voters in their state decide and wait for the nation-wide results. Meaning that if Utah (just an example) voters vote 100% for Jane Doe but Jane Smith wins the national popular vote, Utah's electoral votes would go to Smith; not Doe.

I don't see how that could be legal. But then again, we just had an investigation into the Trump campaign where the head of the Trump campaign wasn't asked a single question by investigators....

Who knows anymore?

Wasn’t Putin the head of the Trump campaign?

 

[The Original Tree]

So why haven’t we stopped this or put an end to Sanctuary Cities?

ThisIsMe nails it in post #5. If enough states enter into an agreement to have their electors cast votes for the winner of the national popular vote, there is nothing in the constitution nor the nation's law that prevents it. Thus no Constitutional amendment is required for such a change.

United States Constitution: Article I, Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Doesn't matter what's in the compact. Any political compact is automatically null and void, regardless of content. The only recognized compacts are border compacts and commercial compacts.

 

[The Original Tree]

Nah but your head was bobbin on his knobbin.

That’s what it said in The Dossier Putin Paid you With for your services to his Gold Member.

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

Two of the states (NE and ME) do not have a winner-take-all system. So there is precedent for a state to craft their own methodology of awarding electoral votes.

Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votesto the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular votewinner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). ... A split has occurred once in each of these states.

However, in each of those states, the leading vote-getter in the congressional district gets the electoral vote. What some states are talking about is ignoring whatever the voters in their state decide and wait for the nation-wide results. Meaning that if Utah (just an example) voters vote 100% for Jane Doe but Jane Smith wins the national popular vote, Utah's electoral votes would go to Smith; not Doe.

I don't see how that could be legal. But then again, we just had an investigation into the Trump campaign where the head of the Trump campaign wasn't asked a single question by investigators....

Who knows anymore?

Wasn’t Putin the head of the Trump campaign?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Article V, USC:

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I think you have too much faith in this ignorant generation. They will succumb to tard "fairness"