| Platapus |
11-09-12 08:34 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
(Post 1958621)
Ridiculous and unnecessary amount of complexity and red tape if you ask me.
|
It may seem unnecessary now, but in the early days, the simple act of polling people took a lot longer time.
Almost interesting trivia.
There have been over 700 proposed amendments to the constitution to either significantly change or abolish the Electoral College. More proposed amendments on this topic than any other topic.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...llege/faq.html
Personally, I think the solution is to fix the electoral college, not abolish it. One way I would like to fix it is to make all the states use proportional elector selection methodologies in order to more closely represent the votes of the citizens.
But both major political parties like the Electoral College just the way it is, so don't expect help from Congress.
There is a second way to propose an amendment, but it has never been used.
2/3rds of the legislators of the states (34 States) can form a convention to propose an amendment. Then if 3/4ths of the states (38 states) ratify it, then it becomes an amendment to the constitution.
What are the chances of 34 states getting together and forming a convention about this? :nope:
BTW, Although it is trendy to blame the president for *everything* that happens in the US, the president has no say in proposing or approving amendments to the constitution. There is no presidential veto for constitutional amendments.
Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
Quote:
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
|
|
