[hanamizu]

“... the Senate came five votes shy of breaking the filibuster...”

---

Which also means that it came at least five votes shy (did it take 2/3 to break a filibuster back then?) of passing the Senate anyway. And then there’s the problem of getting 3/4ths of the states to vote to ratify it. Back then there were 14 states with only 3 or 4 Electoral votes—enough by themselves to block ratification.

And then there were and are states that probably not ratify for the selfish reason that they don’t want the larger states deciding who will be President forever.

[MRadtke]

“And then there were and are states that probably not ratify for the selfish reason that they don’t want the larger states deciding who will be President forever.”

I wouldn’t call it “selfish” for a state to not want to be entirely irrelevant when it comes to electing the nation’s next president.