What's your opinion about possible Constitutional amendments?

[Ted King]

sekker wrote:
[quote=Ombligo]
Statehood for DC is more complicated as the residents have not voted for it, the borders have not been established that would exclude the federal property, the governing body is also not set up as a state. For DC, it may make more sense to cede the residential areas of the district to Maryland, leaving the mall and adjacent federal property out. That of course assumes Maryland would accept it, which is not a given.

I used to live in Maryland when there was a push to move DC under that umbrella to enable some representation of DC citizens.

At that time, those in Maryland were fine. The DC residents were adamant that they has suffered so long as disenfranchised voters that the only way forward was statehood and the full representation of two Senators.
Just want to note:

Population of Wyoming: 582,328

Population of Washington D.C. (proper): 702,455

[SteveG]

The national High school debate topic in my senior year of high school was 'Should the Electoral College be abolished?"

That was a long, long, long time ago. The arguments are still the same...only now this arrangement has almost brought down our democracy.

(similarly, I believe women should be given the vote.)

[rjmacs]

Ombligo wrote:
Statehood for DC is more complicated as the residents have not voted for it, the borders have not been established that would exclude the federal property, the governing body is also not set up as a state. For DC, it may make more sense to cede the residential areas of the district to Maryland, leaving the mall and adjacent federal property out. That of course assumes Maryland would accept it, which is not a given.

I think you may be operating on outdated information. DC has held two referenda for its residents on statehood, most recently in 2016, when over 85% of voters favored becoming the 51st state. Border changes to retain the federal capital as a separate district within the borders of the new state have also been proposed, so that the nation's capital retains its independent status per the Constitution (see map below). Also, the D.C. statehood referendum proposes a new governing structure as part of the establishment of the state (which is typical for any new state), which would inherit the responsibilities of the current city government.

DC residents don't want to become Maryland residents, and Maryland has repeatedly declined to seek retrocession of DC land to the state - the chief proponents of this option have all been Republicans, in particular Louie Gohmert from TX. Ask yourself why you find your opinions lining up with such a fellow.

[sekker]

Meanwhile, there ARE options to effectively abolish the EC without an Amendment.

'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' is one.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/20...l-college/

[Ted King]

sekker wrote:
Meanwhile, there ARE options to effectively abolish the EC without an Amendment.

'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' is one.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/20...l-college/

That is a great idea and I've been all for it since it started. It's a lower hurdle to clear than amending the Constitution but given the political environment we have now, it's still a pretty high hurdle. I hope it succeeds, though. If we get enough states to go along and the Electoral College is effectively irrelevant then people might be more inclined to say, okay we'll go along with an Amendment to get rid of it. The reason I would like to see that happen is because the Compact relies on states keeping laws on the books that say they are part of the compact. Any state could back out by passing a law nullifying their previous compact. A Constitutional Amendment is nowhere near as vulnerable.

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=sekker]
Meanwhile, there ARE options to effectively abolish the EC without an Amendment.

'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' is one.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/20...l-college/

That is a great idea and I've been all for it since it started. It's a lower hurdle to clear than amending the Constitution but given the political environment we have now, it's still a pretty high hurdle. I hope it succeeds, though. If we get enough states to go along and the Electoral College is effectively irrelevant then people might be more inclined to say, okay we'll go along with an Amendment to get rid of it. The reason I would like to see that happen is because the Compact relies on states keeping laws on the books that say they are part of the compact. Any state could back out by passing a law nullifying their previous compact. A Constitutional Amendment is nowhere near as vulnerable.
It's also very unclear whether the current SCotUS would find the NPVIC constitutional. There are some pretty strong legal arguments against it, despite the fact that I think it's very clever and legitimate.

[sekker]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=sekker]
Meanwhile, there ARE options to effectively abolish the EC without an Amendment.

'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' is one.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/20...l-college/

That is a great idea and I've been all for it since it started. It's a lower hurdle to clear than amending the Constitution but given the political environment we have now, it's still a pretty high hurdle. I hope it succeeds, though. If we get enough states to go along and the Electoral College is effectively irrelevant then people might be more inclined to say, okay we'll go along with an Amendment to get rid of it. The reason I would like to see that happen is because the Compact relies on states keeping laws on the books that say they are part of the compact. Any state could back out by passing a law nullifying their previous compact. A Constitutional Amendment is nowhere near as vulnerable.
It's also very unclear whether the current SCotUS would find the NPVIC constitutional. There are some pretty strong legal arguments against it, despite the fact that I think it's very clever and legitimate.
Yes, I think it would land at the SCOTUS.