TexasCHLforum.com

The title says it all.

“ Introduced on January 11th and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the resolution proposes an “amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States.”

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/a ... l-college/

To make it even easier to steal the next presidential election???

No Thanks

parabelum wrote: ↑Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:33 pm The title says it all.

“ Introduced on January 11th and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the resolution proposes an “amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States.”

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/a ... l-college/

In the words of the great 20th century philosopher Nancy Reagan: “Just say no.”

This is likely not going to pass, I hope...but, it could actually backfire on both parties as it will be more likely to allow a 3rd, 4th or 5th party to come in and compete for the votes....that may not be a terrible thing, considering...

Correct me of I'm wrong, but won't the majority of the States, have to vote for this to amend the Constitutions. I think something like 37 States?
I,m sure the usual suspects will be on board, NY, Commifornia, etc, but I don't see, them ever having enough to get this passed.

Jusme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:33 am Correct me of I'm wrong, but won't the majority of the States, have to vote for this to amend the Constitutions. I think something like 37 States?
I,m sure the usual suspects will be on board, NY, Commifornia, etc, but I don't see, them ever having enough to get this passed.

Jusme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:33 am Correct me of I'm wrong, but won't the majority of the States, have to vote for this to amend the Constitutions. I think something like 37 States?
I,m sure the usual suspects will be on board, NY, Commifornia, etc, but I don't see, them ever having enough to get this passed.

This will be an issue for them as well:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

crazy2medic wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 7:40 am

Jusme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:33 am Correct me of I'm wrong, but won't the majority of the States, have to vote for this to amend the Constitutions. I think something like 37 States?
I,m sure the usual suspects will be on board, NY, Commifornia, etc, but I don't see, them ever having enough to get this passed.

Yes. Fortunately there aren't enough complete fools running small states to ever do that.

This is one of several reasons I am opposed to a constitutional convention of the states. Too many people believe the myth that there will be controls over what will or will not be heard.

I don't believe this even gets out of congress.

Jusme wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:33 am Correct me of I'm wrong, but won't the majority of the States, have to vote for this to amend the Constitutions. I think something like 37 States?
I,m sure the usual suspects will be on board, NY, Commifornia, etc, but I don't see, them ever having enough to get this passed.

I believe it would require 2/3 majority in both houses of congress before it gets to the ratification process by the states. They couldn't pass an amendment with 2/ 3 of congress to agree the sun rises every day.....

TomV wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:52 am This is one of several reasons I am opposed to a constitutional convention of the states. Too many people believe the myth that there will be controls over what will or will not be heard.

I don't believe this even gets out of congress.

Even with a convention of the states, it would require 3/4 of the individual states to ratify any proposed amendments.

Didn't take long; doubtful that this will ever happen. The irony is the Democrats forget their favorite president after Obama, Bill Clinton, never received a majority vote in either of his elections and almost certainly would have lost his first run in which he only got 43% of the vote. Ross Perot, the spoiler for George Bush with 19%, would have thrown his support to Bush and few if any of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton in the run-off anyway. In that scenario Clinton quite possibly would never have been elected following Bushes second term.

Whenever someone brings this up to me I always ask them if they also agree that the Senate should be based on population instead of each state getting the same number of senators. That usually leads to a discussion of the background on this including the Great Compromise, States Rights, etc. And as much as I'd love to get rid of a Senator (or two) from Vermont, most people agree with me that it makes sense to give small states equal representation as large states in at least some ways so they can effectively advocate for the unique interests of their local population.

As others have said, this has zero chance of getting a sufficient majority in either house of Congress, much less both. And even if it did somehow make it through Congress it would never be ratified. The reason is the same in all cases. Elected officials from smaller states would have to obviously vote against the interests of the people they represent.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:13 am Whenever someone brings this up to me I always ask them if they also agree that the Senate should be based on population instead of each state getting the same number of senators. That usually leads to a discussion of the background on this including the Great Compromise, States Rights, etc. And as much as I'd love to get rid of a Senator (or two) from Vermont, most people agree with me that it makes sense to give small states equal representation as large states in at least some ways so they can effectively advocate for the unique interests of their local population.

Most people think that the US Senate and US House of Representatives were both created to represent "the people". While the latter definitely was, the former was originally created to represent the states themselves. It wasn't until the passage of the 17th amendment that senators were directly elected by the general population. Under the original design, the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the individual states. When looked at thru that lens, it makes sense for each state to receive equal representation within the US Senate, regardless of population.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:18 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:13 am Whenever someone brings this up to me I always ask them if they also agree that the Senate should be based on population instead of each state getting the same number of senators. That usually leads to a discussion of the background on this including the Great Compromise, States Rights, etc. And as much as I'd love to get rid of a Senator (or two) from Vermont, most people agree with me that it makes sense to give small states equal representation as large states in at least some ways so they can effectively advocate for the unique interests of their local population.

Most people think that the US Senate and US House of Representatives were both created to represent "the people". While the latter definitely was, the former was originally created to represent the states themselves. It wasn't until the passage of the 17th amendment that senators were directly elected by the general population. Under the original design, the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the individual states. When looked at thru that lens, it makes sense for each state to receive equal representation within the US Senate, regardless of population.

Exactly. And by extension it makes sense for the Presidential election to be a hybrid since we are electing a person who will preside over the individual citizens as well as having limited power over the states themselves.