Stop Whining about the Electoral College and DO SOMETHING (Amendment)

National Archives ^ | 1787 | Founders

[StAntKnee]

Hate the Electoral College? Act now to amend the United States Constitution. Instructions are simple. Article V of the Constitution explains, in only 143 words, how to change the parts of the document that brings you to so much pain. Here it is, in full:

Article V

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.

Granted, achieving the task set by this process (of only 143 words, remember) is monumental.

Especially since Republicans, who seem rather fond of the EC just now, control both houses of Congress and most of the state legislatures.

But that's not stopping the whiners from taking action to organize an effort to amend and get rid of the institution they hate.

So. Instead of whining, STFU and DO IT.

[WayneS]

PS - Minor clarification - ...two-thirds of congress to propose amendment (or two-thirds of states to call a convention).

[WayneS]

They will have to get 3/4 of the states to agree.

[wordsofearnest]

So do they want to do away with the Senate also? Same principal.

[onedoug]

Dream on....

[Junk Silver]

What I find hysterical is that these same Progressive Democrats loved the Electoral college back when they thought there was a “Blue Firewall” assuring Hillary’s victory. Their unspoken assumption was that ballot stuffing in big cities such as Detroit and Philadelphia would always assure that key battleground states went Democrat.

[dware]

not a chance!!

So you say, but I think you'll be disappointed. Especially when the right realizes they may need support of the left in some areas to pass term limits. That's when the deal making begins, and you must know of the right's penchant for bending over backwards to give the left whatever they want. You know, because "bipartisanship".

An Article V Convention will NOT end the way supporters suggest. Be careful what you wish for.

[dware]

The Republicans: "We want term limits!"

The dummycrats: "Well, we want to end the Electoral College, and we won't support your term limits whatsoever unless you show some support to get rid of the EC"

Republicans (always prepared to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory): "Ok"

Once again, be careful what you wish for.

[Little Ray]

Got bad news for those idiots.
An amendment to end the electoral college, or enslave it to tje popular vote, would disenfranchise every smaller state in the Union, leaving control in the hands of the major metropolitan areas of the US.
Assuming basic sanity on the part of these states, such an amendment would never pass. After all, 2/3s of the states would have to ratify it.
Perhaps that is a big assumption, though.

[fortes fortuna juvat]

Sorry but the founders were dead set against mob rule as a form of government and set up the EC to prevent a tyranny of the majority.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And this is exactly what knowledgeable people who are either for OR against the EC clearly understand, but for opposite reasons. Did I say that right?

[i_robot73]

Fine. Do away w/ the EC; just have it so each county is counted instead.

[Twinkie]

NOPE. The ELECTORAL VOTE setup ain’t broke just ‘cause
HITLER-Y CLINTON lost.

Even IF ya’ll manage to get it torpedoed; ya’ll will be
howling to get it changed back the next time a DHIMMICRAT
loses with your “new & improved” method.

[Wuli]

This only comes out from Liberals when they lose the electoral college vote. When they win the electoral college vote as when B. Clinton won the electoral college vote but never got a majority, only a plurality - due to third party Perot. If they were not the hypocrites that they are, such results would have them demand a run off whenever a clear majority of the “popular” vote is not achieved. Who knows how it would have turned out without Perot on he ballot. Did the Dims want to know? No. The electoral college majority was fine with them, then.

[Rashputin]

Now that the democrat fascist party doesn't control the majority, or even most of, State Legislatures, just how do these idiots think they're going to get any change to the Constitution via an Amendment?

I guess they think they'll win back the States they no longer control with the stirring battle cry of, "We could have had Hillary !!!".

[Kickass Conservative]

Funny how the Founders figured out “The Hunger Games” form of Governance wasn’t such a good idea.

[Oatka]

Here's an Interesting interactive website where you can play "What If?" with the 2012 election using the different proposed methods of awarding EVs. You can also go by your state to see what the difference would have been.

I've always liked the Congressional District method, as it would break the power of the Metro areas (Miami, Chicago, Las Vegas, Philly, etc.) calling the EV shots for the whole state.

Using the first two methods, CA would lose 12 EVs, FL 16/18, MI 11/9, PA 15/13. Worst hit among the Republican side would be TX 11, GA 4, and a half dozen others 1.

[StAntKnee]

You’re right. That is interesting. Thanks for the link.