EyeSawYou

Yes, tyranny over the minority. Would you still feel the same way about a national majority vote if Republican Presidential candidates always won every election by a majority?

Angmo

Lol. I was referring to the opportunity Trump would have with such a dastardly move. Dems are just planning ahead. Will take more conservatives to halt it again.

pendennis

From your posts, I doubt that you ever read The Federalist, or even The Anti-Federalist. You certainly haven't read any of John Adams', James Madison's, or James Monroe's writings on the Constitution.

The United States was going to avoid any type of democratic government, constitutional or otherwise. They had seen what had happened in Europe, and especially in England. Pre-Revolutionary War (a misnomer if there ever was one), the colonists had wanted representation in Parliament. The British, in their everlasting stupidity, fought this idea right up until April 1775. Had they granted even one seat for each colony, it wouldn't have made any difference in British colonial policies. There were never enough colonial votes to affect any legislation.

The idea of a bicameral legislature, with the several states selecting Senators, was a stroke of genius. The Founders knew that the larger populated states would always win in a single-house legislature. This also had the effect of giving the states the last veto of a runaway House of Representatives, virtually the same condition we have today, with a Democrat majority in the House, and opposed to the President on literally everything.

Let's say that somehow, the Constitution would be amended, doing away with the Electoral College, and the Presidential election turned to a true national vote. Just how many trips would a Presidential candidate make to states other than New York, California, and maybe Texas? And just how long until we have another secession vote, which would break this country into two, or more, different countries.

There is a solution, however. First, complete the necessary state house votes to call for a convention for Constitutional Amendment (The Constitution can't be rewritten, only amended). At least two things could be accomplished. First, strengthen the 10th Amendment, giving the states real powers over Congress; then repeal the 17th Amendment, returning selection of Senators back to the state legislatures. At today's states balances, the Republicans would probably gain around two seats. Hardly enough for a mandate, but enough to force Senators to be true to their state constituents. Oh, and while we're at it, we may as well abolish the 16th Amendment, forcing a new tax structure more attuned to states' needs.

Angmo

They will ignore the truth. In the famous words of Max Planck:

“Truth never triumphs, its opponents just die out.“

You know. The quantum physics guy

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Rather than worry about whether or not I've read the federalist papers, perhaps you should read Article III of the Constitution.
As to your worry that the Presidential candidate wouldn't visit certain states if we eliminated the Electoral College you need to understand that with the Electoral College in 2016 there were forty states that neither Presidential candidate stepped foot in.
Finally, your idea of Congress being able to over-rule SCOTUS is not a step for democracy but rather an elimination of the checks and balances that the founding fathers intended. Three branches of government, all with their power being balanced by the other two.
Finally, the return to appointing Senators instead of electing them makes absolutely no sense and has zero up side to it.
If we put in all of your recommendations, we would be laying the ground work for a dictatorship and maybe that's your reason for coming up with or at least plageurizing this post. Fuher Trump will finally be named President for Life?

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Your numbers are way out of line on the number of states visited.

Elaine2025 Loc: Seattle, Wa

Little Frankie, maybe you should know what you are talking about before spouting off, although that never seems to stop you. Clinton campaigned in 37 states plus DC and Puerto Rico. Trump campaigned in 45 states and DC. So, if you can't get something that simple and easy to verify, the rest of the post is crap and just your liberal opinion.

Angmo

Recall Obakapig did not know the number of states here in America. Perhaps He confused it with the number of Islamic states. Some coincidence eh?

EyeSawYou

Yes, tyranny over the minority. Would you still feel the same way about a national majority vote if Republican Presidential candidates always won every election by a majority?

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Yes, yes and yes.
The majority of the citizens should decide who is the President.
It's really a simple concept.
Even Madison, who invented the Electoral College never fully supported it. He believed that the people at large were the best way to elect a President but knew that the less populous slave states would not be influential under such a system. Thus he backed the Electoral College at the time.
The strangest part of all this was the southern states who felt that slaves were property and not people, were the same states that insisted their slaves should be counted as people for determining population and thus electors. Thus the 3/5ths compromise was born.

Angmo

You must have failed your high school civics class. Morrroooons would know better.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

You just described the reason for the keeping the Electoral college, what say could states like Wyoming, Iowa, Rode Island, and many other small states have in choosing the president.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Ok so let me try to explain it to you. Presently, if you are a Republican and you live in New York your vote is worth nothing in a presidential election.
If you eliminate the electoral college your vote will be worth 1 vote.
What's better? 0 or 1?

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

That would be the price i willingly pay to live in a Republic.

Angmo

The electoral college beats your argument every time.