Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration The Impeachment of Donald trump

This is basically just another case of people deciding that they don't need to use the mechanisms set up in the constitution (either to use the electoral college as stated, or to amend it out of existence), and I think there's been enough of that.

The argument is being made that the electoral college has never functioned as intended... basically by its proponents.

If a Republican was ever denied the White House due to the vagaries of the electoral college I think we'd see some changes right quick.

But it's possible that a Republican will never achieve an actual majority of the popular vote again so we aren't liable to see much change.

As in 2016 Donald Trump could lose this election by millions of votes and still be declared the winner. His followers will call it a landslide and a mandate...

Yeah, I tend to agree.

But if a part of the constitution isn't working, you amend it.

But it's unlikely we will ever arrive at a sufficient number to do an amendment.
If it was JUST the EC and only the EC, it might not be such an issue but, together WITH gerrymandering, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, AND rulings like Citizens United, it's a FOUR PRONGED weapon against the democratic process.

My argument is simple:

1. EC
2. Gerrymandering
3. Gut the VRA
4. Citizens United

You only get to pick ONE.
You DON'T get to have ALL FOUR.

Will not happen in my lifetime.

It is delusional to believe or think the Constitution can be amended for any reason any believes is reasonable in this political environment. The only changes will be activist (meaning conservative for at least the next 30 years) SC decisions which affect it. The main case in point being Heller in which J Scalia effectively crossed a line through the first phrase of the 2nd, leaving shall not be infringed. Face it, a conservative SC will mold all Constitutional issues in their own image and there is nothing anyone can do about it for the next 30 years.

Then we're [censored]. We can either put up with bullshit, or decide that our constitution really isn't functional, anymore.

Neither answer is acceptable.

I have no problems with the Electoral college because we are a union of the several states. Each state as part of that union has a say. I'm totally against gerrymandering, gerrymandering is a system of our representatives choosing their voters instead of the voters choosing their representatives. But as long as both parties see that gerrymandering can give them a political advantage, it's here to stay. State legislatures could outlaw it if they wanted to. But the party in control of the state legislature doesn't want to, they want to use the power of gerrymandering to enhance their political advantage. After the 2010 census, the Republicans hollered their lungs out of the injustice of the democratic gerrymandering of Illinois and New York while the Democrats did the same when the GOP gerrymandered Texas and North Carolina. Another case where if one party does it, it's perfectly okay and right, but if the other party gerrymanders, it is wrong and evil.

I don't believe corporations are people, but money talks. Neither party wants to bite the hand that feeds it, corporations are big investors in our political system and to both parties. I say investors instead of donors because corporations expect a good return on their investment. They get it. If I had my way, I'd have an amendment that would state that only a living, breathing citizen of the United States could donate to any political candidate or party.

Citizens United didn't say "corporations are people".
Mitt Romney said it on the campaign trail in 2012, but CU does not say that at all.

CU basically says that "a corporation is A PERSON" ....SINGULAR.
And that, in my humble opinion, creates an entirely new species of person, one made not of flesh, blood, muscle and bone, but rather, an IMMORTAL one made of glass, steel, concrete, lawyers and unlimited money.
And these new immortal and nearly omnipotent "persons" also have none of the responsibilities of mere mortals.

Corporations are people? Yeah sure, of course they are.
But a corporation is not "A PERSON" and there's a huge difference.

Unfortunately, the Citizen's United case was decided as constitutional, and accurately so.

The founders couldn't see everything coming.

So as odious as it is, this is another thing that would require an amendment.