LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

When one posts an article, with no personal comment, it is generally assumed that one is in agreement with said article.

Here’s a softball ... do you or do you not support the right to have an article V convention.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Kind of like asking for evidence that the sky is blue ... but let’s take Roe v Wade.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

You claim the founders ... plural, meaning at least to a majority ... agree with you, yet your ‘PROOF’ is one outlier opinion over a decade after the fact.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Hamilton was the one who devised the system, explained and "sold" the system (in the Federalist), and then tried to rectify it a decade later when it's implementation went wrong.


Please offer the words of even one founding father who supports your view of how it should work.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

I disagree. It is the Electoral College that prevents NY, CA, and OH from controlling the country to the detriment of others due to their large populations. The EC was designed to prevent disparity of population from skewing the actions of the country of as a whole. While the high population states want total control and the low population states want to rid themselves of the high population states, it is just this give-and-take that more-or-less keeps the nation together and from lurching completely off the tracks if you will forgive my metaphor.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Seriously?


John Blair
James Madison
George Washington
Nicholas Gilman
John Langdon
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
William Samuel Johnson
Roger Sherman
David Brearly
Jonathan Dayton
William Livingston
William Paterson
George Clymer
Thomas Fitzsimmons
Benjamin Franklin
Jared Ingersoll
Thomas Mifflin
Gouvernor Morris
Robert Morris
James Wilson
Richard Bassett
Gunning Bedford, Jr.
Jacob Broom
John Dickinson
George Read
Maryland
Daniel Carroll
Daniel Jenifer
James McHenry
North Carolina
William Blount
Richard Dobbs Spaight
Hugh Williamson
Pierce Butler
Charles Pinckney
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney
John Rutledge

Plus all 13 legislatures.

I did deduct Hamilton even though he did vote for it.

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1027.html

As to their words:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

http://constitutionus.com

And, to help educate my leftist friends, the EC is not a ‘winner take all’ proposition as the electors can vote freely.

Anything else I can help you with?

Tex-s

Pure democracy is an unmitigated evil. Two lions and one gazelle voting on what's for dinner. Majority rule, with no protections for the minority, was once considered an unconscionable failure of leadership by people on the left, but now it's the mantra? Hypocrisy reigns supreme when the only focus is the 'defeat' of another.

Tex-s

And to the original post, I have to call B.S. to the 'Common Cause' fiction.

Voting rights, environmental protections, and all the other 'rights we hold dear' that this group fallaciously suggest could be lost if an Article V convention were ever called are propaganda and nothing more. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify any proposals that were to emanate from a convention, so voting rights, gun rights, freedom of speech, etc are NOT at risk. Also, the Electoral College will NEVER disappear, as there will always be a greater number of low-population states than high-population states. (This fact is a sad proof that pure democracy, that voting strictly by the numbers, is not always going to serve one philosophical viewpoint. It would have elected Hillary without an Electoral College, but it will forever preserve the College.)

What the Common Cause folks omit in this is other ideas that might surface in an Article V setting, and with smaller-populated states outnumbering larger, and with Americans REALLY tired of DC ineptitude and corruption, these policies could be close to the 3/4 requirement....
1) Term limits could easily be installed for Congress and for the SCOTUS
2) Gun rights could be guaranteed with new language
3) A federal taxation limit could be installed (say, 23% of the GDP from 2 years ago)
4) A balanced budget could be mandated (combined, these last two would simply limit government growth, unless the government decided to look to grow the economy)
5) The birthright citizenship issue could be legislated OUT of existence.
6) Government could be removed from education
7) Government could be removed from financial involvement in medical insurance/care
8) The right of the individual to say 'no' to another individual could be clearly enunciated
9) An amendment could be penned banning ALL rules, regulations, laws, directives, and all other forms of policy implementation that seek to promote or demote anyone's status based on any consideration of race, gender, age, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc. This would effectively end the implementation of actual systemic racism and sexist policy like admissions quotas, hiring quotas, Affirmative Action, and the like.
10) Abolish minimum wage laws (and lots of economists believe that financially barring the young person from entering the workforce today creates bigger issues down the road.)

When articles such as the OP omit essentially 100% of the opposing viewpoint, I tend to view them as fodder for the ignorant, or at best, echo chamber music.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Democracy produced Hitler, Chavez, Maduro and many others.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I would rather have the Congress to openly and publically debate the Amendments proposed in the various State calls and either adopt or decline them with reasons why. A national Constitutional Convention has only been held once (Articles of Confederation) and it was not widely reported at the time - no screaming newspaper newsheadlins. So the to be decided Convention rules could well be less public than many would desire.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

It is "Winner-take-all" as the electors pre-announce who they will vote for, and are selected in a block, instead of individually. And most states legally require electors to vote for their pre-announced choice.


Find me a founding father who specifically supports that....

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

This post sets forth a laundry list of issues that need open debate - there may be pro con remarks that will have to be endured. So thanks Tex for getting the ball rolling.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

No. That only works in one candidate could get 100% of the votes in those states. Under a popular vote system, one vote in NY is worth exactly the same as one vote in Idaho.

Note, however, that under our current system, a candidate DOES get 100% of the electoral votes for a state, regardless of how big a victory they won there. If electoral votes were allocated proportionally, it would be much fairer.



NO, it was not. That was never a consideration when it was designed. That's merely an attempt at ex post facto justification.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Ahem:

2016 election: In Washington, Democratic party electors gave three presidential votes to Colin Powell and one to Faith Spotted Eagle[17] and these electors cast vice-presidential votes for Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, Susan Collins, and Winona LaDuke. In Hawaii, Bernie Sanders received one presidential vote and Elizabeth Warren received one vice-presidential vote. In Texas, John Kasich and Ron Paul received one presidential vote each, and one of these electors gave Carly Fiorina a vice-presidential vote.[18][19]

In addition, three other electors attempted to vote against their pledge, but had their votes invalidated. In Colorado, Kasich received one vote for president, which was invalidated.[20] Two additional electors, one in Maine and one in Minnesota, cast votes for Sanders for president but had their votes invalidated and their replacement electors cast for Clinton. The same Minnesota elector voted for Tulsi Gabbard for vice president, but had that vote invalidated and given to Tim Kaine.

10 was the largest number to not vote for the pledged presidential candidate in US history.

States can impose a penalty for not following the rules, but I know of no instance where this was decided by the courts and is of dubious legality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Perhaps we should go back to open debate rather than posturing for the press/radio/TV cameras in the House and Senate. Require that all the representatives attend sessions of the whole, debate, and vote in open session. Also while we are at it, require 5 days/week of open sessions.

Furthermore, I would remove the ability of anyone to insert into the Congressional Record and statement not voiced in open session of congress.

Talk about Radical!!!