Ending the Electoral College

[boombox4]

Getting rid of or adjusting the Senate membership has even less of a chance of happening than getting rid of the Electoral College. It absolutely will not happen under any circumstances whatsoever. Ever.

Sheesh! Some of you people need to read up on how this country was founded -- the good and the bad -- as well as study the Constitution thoroughly.

As a student of History, I do understand. I was referring to a growing popular movement who apparently believe the Senate gives low population states an unfair advantage in determining what they see as the will of the people.

All it would take is an Amendment to get rid of the EC, and another one to change the way the Senate is apportioned. We already had an Amendment to change the way Senators are appointed / elected. Give it enough time, the US may see the day when California has 40 senators and Wyoming has 1.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

As a student of History, I do understand. I was referring to a growing popular movement who apparently believe the Senate gives low population states an unfair advantage in determining what they see as the will of the people.

All it would take is an Amendment to get rid of the EC, and another one to change the way the Senate is apportioned. We already had an Amendment to change the way Senators are appointed / elected. Give it enough time, the US may see the day when California has 40 senators and Wyoming has 1.

Sounds too much like how House seats are allocated if the Senate were to do the same thing in this proposal though.

 

[KeithE4]

As a student of History, I do understand. I was referring to a growing popular movement who apparently believe the Senate gives low population states an unfair advantage in determining what they see as the will of the people.

All it would take is an Amendment to get rid of the EC, and another one to change the way the Senate is apportioned. We already had an Amendment to change the way Senators are appointed / elected. Give it enough time, the US may see the day when California has 40 senators and Wyoming has 1.

If you're a student of history, you know why the Founding Fathers allocated House district by population and kept the Senate even, at 2 senators per state. You also know that this will not change. Ever. The House was designed to represent the people directly, while the Senate was supposed to represent the state governments.

Even if the 17th Amendment is repealed, and selection of Senators is returned to the state legislatures (extremely unlikely, but not 100% impossible), the Senate will remain at two per state.

 

[TheBigA]

All it would take is an Amendment to get rid of the EC, and another one to change the way the Senate is apportioned.

As a student of history, when was the last time an amendment was passed? Not recently. 1992. Before that, 1971. Congress hasn't passed a budget in years. They can't do what they're supposed to do, much less do the optional things. It won't happen any time soon.

 

[boombox4]

If you're a student of history, you know why the Founding Fathers allocated House district by population and kept the Senate even, at 2 senators per state. You also know that this will not change. Ever. The House was designed to represent the people directly, while the Senate was supposed to represent the state governments.

Even if the 17th Amendment is repealed, and selection of Senators is returned to the state legislatures (extremely unlikely, but not 100% impossible), the Senate will remain at two per state.

If you've ever taken a Constitutional Law class, you are aware of the Amendment process. Anything can change.

I'm not saying it will change, but anything can, and I would not be surprised if 100 years from now the Senate looks different than it does now.

There also have been calls for a new Constitutional Convention. Will that happen? I doubt it, but it's within the realm of possibility over the next century. I see plenty of dissatisfaction with the 2nd Amendment, the EC, the Supreme Court, and even the 1st Amendment is under attack. None of us can say how society will view such things 50 to 100 years from now.

 

[boombox4]

As a student of history, when was the last time an amendment was passed? Not recently. 1992. Before that, 1971. Congress hasn't passed a budget in years. They can't do what they're supposed to do, much less do the optional things. It won't happen any time soon.

True, but 27 amendments in 230 years is an average of just over one amendment every 10 years.

 

[CTListener]

True, but 27 amendments in 230 years is an average of just over one amendment every 10 years.

Showing just how deep the political, social and even religious differences between the states have become. And those early amendments were to be expected -- the Constitution is a wonderful document, but the men who wrote it weren't gods ruling from Mt. Olympus; they were human and there were a few things they either got wrong or forgot to address.

 

[TheBigA]

True, but 27 amendments in 230 years is an average of just over one amendment every 10 years.

We're not playing averages here. We're talking about history. The first ten amendments were ratified in 1789 with the main document, so you can eliminate them off the bat. That sort of throws off your average a bit.

 

[gr8oldies]

I read where Senator Warren thinks she'll be the last President elected by the electoral college. Passing a Constotutional amendment to enshrine a Democrat President forever by 2024? Good luck with that.

 

[KeithE4]

We're not playing averages here. We're talking about history. The first ten amendments were ratified in 1789 with the main document, so you can eliminate them off the bat. That sort of throws off your average a bit.

There were several multi-decade gaps, so an average really is moot: 61 years between the 12th (1804) and 13th (1865), 43 years between the 15th (1870) and 16th (1913), 13 years between the 19th (1920) & 20th/21st (both 1933), 18 years between the 21st and 22nd (1951), and 21 years between the 26th (1971) and 27th (1992, and had been available for ratification since 1792!). And we're now at 27 years since the 27th was ratified.

 

[KeithE4]

I read where Senator Warren thinks she'll be the last President elected by the electoral college. Passing a Constotutional amendment to enshrine a Democrat President forever by 2024? Good luck with that.

I'll go as far as to say that there will be a Constitutional amendment dissolving the United States before the Electoral College is done away with. And neither are on anyone's radar screen that matters.

 

[semoochie]

I'll go as far as to say that there will be a Constitutional amendment dissolving the United States before the Electoral College is done away with. And neither are on anyone's radar screen that matters.

If a certain man,(who used to live in New York and plans to move to Florida)has his way, that very well might happen.

 

[boombox4]

We're not playing averages here. We're talking about history. The first ten amendments were ratified in 1789 with the main document, so you can eliminate them off the bat. That sort of throws off your average a bit.

If you're really talking about history it's a mistake to think that there will be no more amendments. As I mentioned, I'm talking 100 years.

 

[TheBigA]

If you're really talking about history it's a mistake to think that there will be no more amendments.

No one has said there will be "no more amendments." Just that this particular one is very unlikely.

 

[KeithE4]

If a certain man,(who used to live in New York and plans to move to Florida)has his way, that very well might happen.

It's theoretically possible, but only via an Article V Convention of the States (Congress certainly would never propose such a thing). But even if it were to happen, it would spend years in court before being sent back to the states for ratification.

The logistics of divvying up Federal property, including who would get the nuke codes, plus the fate of the territories and Native American lands, would also be a problem. I wouldn't lose sleep over it; it's only in the minds of conspiracy nuts of both the left and the right.

 

[gr8oldies]

That's seems to be a long-standing conservative wet dream....an convention to re-do the Constitution that would lock out the blue states. Good luck with that.

It's theoretically possible, but only via an Article V Convention of the States (Congress certainly would never propose such a thing). But even if it were to happen, it would spend years in court before being sent back to the states for ratification.

The logistics of divvying up Federal property, including who would get the nuke codes, plus the fate of the territories and Native American lands, would also be a problem. I wouldn't lose sleep over it; it's only in the minds of conspiracy nuts of both the left and the right.

 

[KeithE4]

That's seems to be a long-standing conservative wet dream....an convention to re-do the Constitution that would lock out the blue states. Good luck with that.

There have been secessionist/independence movements in several states over the course of our history, including the three that had been independent countries at one time (Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii) plus California, with and without the other Pacific Coast states, and Alaska. Hawaii has the most legitimate beef, since its annexation by the US was probably illegal to begin with. But regardless, nothing serious has or will happen anytime soon, if ever.

 

[DavidEduardo]

There have been secessionist/independence movements in several states over the course of our history, including the three that had been independent countries at one time (Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii) plus California, with and without the other Pacific Coast states, and Alaska. Hawaii has the most legitimate beef, since its annexation by the US was probably illegal to begin with. But regardless, nothing serious has or will happen anytime soon, if ever.

Add in the constant, albeit minority, independence movement in Puerto Rico... with a similar quasi-legal "spoils of war" colonization as a result of the Spanish-American War.

 

[KeithE4]

Add in the constant, albeit minority, independence movement in Puerto Rico... with a similar quasi-legal "spoils of war" colonization as a result of the Spanish-American War.

One can call them "quasi-legal," but acquiring the defeated country's territories after a war was a given until only recently, including the British acquiring what are now the Great Lakes states and Ontario from the French after the Seven Years War (aka "The French and Indian War") a few years prior to the Revolution.

But I thought the Puerto Rican people voted every few years on their status -- remaining a Commonwealth, statehood, or independence. They continue to keep the status quo. The latter two would require Congressional approval, but neither has ever been accepted by the people, AFAIK. Nothing should change unless they want it.

 

[TheBigA]

Nothing should change unless they want it.

They're not getting statehood as long as you know who is around.