It would help if you actually read it and then answered. The original Constitution has AMENDMENTS. They already have made many changes.
So, you would prefer to be STUCK IN TIME THEN? What is your opinion on the 2nd Amendment? Should we go back to before it was amended?
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at December 1, 2019 3:02 PM MST
No problem with 2nd Amendment. If it all has to be subject to whatever are the hip passing fads and fancies then it is worthless. Same with people wanting to change it just to make themselves masters.
No the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) were not changes to the Constitution they were passed at the same time. Giving personal right to Amercians and limiting powers of the gov. If they were not added by the original states then the Constitution would have never been ratified.
Well if a person looked at the American Constitution in the same light as the Code Of Chivalry they might see how amazing it can be. In the written words of the Code Of Chivalry there lies a power/magic that gives an ordinary person the power to overcome evil and injustice but without that power/magic that's in the written words of the Code Of Chivalry that ordinary person would surly be destroyed. I figure the American Constitution is a powerful/magical thing but it's being used and abused these days so maybe a tune up is needed! Cheers!
Fixing the EC is easy in concept. If all states agree to assign EC votes in proportion to the popular vote in the state, then presidential candidates have incentive to appeal to voters in every state. The current situation is one party or the other completely dominate 38-40 states, so only votes in 10-12 "swing" states really matter, and presidential campaigns mostly focus on those states.
That is the second option, but each state must decide. That won't do for heavily partisan states, though, since they control the state's legislature. Maybe a public referendum.
That's why making EC votes proportional on a state basis would be a reasonable short-term solution. If a GOP candidate can pick up a few extra EC votes by campaigning in Hawaii, there is incentive to do so. If a Democratic candidate can pick up a few EC votes from Kansas, it might cause said Democrat to campaign there.
I agree a pure popular vote election for President has the definite drawback of disenfranchising rural voters.
States are in charge of how their EC votes are distributed. Not the Federal gov.
Any state could do this but why? It would just eliminate their importance in the race.
If people really want to "fix" the EC. They would repeal the cap the Congress placed on the number of Representatives in the House. This is why it is more and more likely that the EC and the popluar vote will not agree.
Proportional representation, rather than winner-takes-all, is what is being suggested here. Case in point, Florida 2000. Bush (supposedly) won by a bee's genitalia, a handful of votes (accusations of electoral fraud still persist). A sane system would have sent 15 GOP and 14 Dem electors to the college, that's how the State voted. Dubya got all 29.
I know the history. And all the states are allowed to distribute their EC votes how they wish. Method must be determined before the vote, of course. And it would be stupid of any state to remove themselves from the election by opting to go all proportional.
Interesting that Canadians know so much about or politics and even our Constitution. I know nothing of yours. (I gotta ask...are you Amber in disguise?)
This post was edited by SaltyPebble at December 1, 2019 6:01 PM MST
officegirl 