131
Comments (17)
sorted by:
16
mushroomhead 16 points ago +16 / -0

Why didnt they just win by the biggest total of allll time? OR DID THEY? 😳

1
AlabamaSlamma 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right. Winners wouldn't be making all these moves to make sure they never lose again.

10
South_Florida_Guy 10 points ago +10 / -0

Are they worried that their regular rigging and cheating won't work next time?

5
Littleirishmaid 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes!

2
South_Florida_Guy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wouldn't it be something if this were actually successful and future Republicans actually won in stunning landslides since conservatives in places like NY and CA actually had incentive to go vote for the first time ever and it showed how much of a majority we actually were all along?

3
Littleirishmaid 3 points ago +3 / -0

Possible, but the only places that would matter would be LA a and NYC.

7
GenericInsult 7 points ago +7 / -0

Article II, section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Electoral College.

It is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution.

Article V sets up the manner by which an amendment is passed.

While there are two different means to amend the founding document, this country has always used the same route: a 2/3rds vote in both houses of Congress, followed by the ratification of 3/4ths of the states.

A plan to scrap the Electoral College via constitutional amendment would not pass in the current environment.

2
msannthrope 2 points ago +2 / -0

I loved civics! And, history. And, English. And, even mathematics ;)...

1
Zskills 1 point ago +1 / -0

What's the other route?

2
GenericInsult 2 points ago +2 / -0

The two ways to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution:

To propose amendments, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

The Supreme Court has said that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, Congress traditionally set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was seven years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might be.

2
Zskills 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh, yeah, that ain't gonna happen... not yet anyway

3
GotCommonSense 3 points ago +3 / -0

who cares..? wont happen now but somewhere down the line if people dont take over the GOP.

They can only do this if good people leave the field to the enemy.

1
MAGAsian 1 point ago +1 / -0

They can't get rid of it, it's part of the Constitution and they don't have the support.

1
OhioRiverGator 1 point ago +1 / -0

STOP using twitter

1
msannthrope 1 point ago +1 / -0

Needs a constitutional amendment---either a Constitutional Convention or proposed by Congress with 2/3 vote both chambers, ratified by 3/4 (round up to 38 states) states' legislatures. Good luck and give my love to the E.R.A. and to Phyllis Schlafly, who helped kill it.

1
Hardrocker556 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe soon this will say "breaking house democrats "....physically breaking them and their bones.

1
hulda0100 1 point ago +1 / -0

would require a Constitutional Amendment.