[Congressman Billybob]

The quick answer to this is pragmatic. One third of the Senate can block any proposal to amend the Constitution. That means 34 Senators. Yet more than 17 states are "small" states whose impact in the Electoral College are twice as much in proportion to population as the four largest states. Those Senators would have to betray the obvious interests of their own states to pass such an amendment.

Once an amendment is passed by Congress, 3/4ths of the states must ratify it. It takes only 13 states to block any proposed amendment to the Constitution. Which 13 small states are willing to cut their own political throats if their legislatures ratify that amendment,

COUNT THE NOSES. SUCH AN AMENDMENT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. And other than some legislative garbage promoted by Hillary!, there is no way to dump the Electoral College except through an amendment.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Says the Wuss: Ma, He's Touching Me"

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.

[suzyq5558]

I cant wait to have my DH read this CBB! we were just talking about this very thing! Thanks for the answer to his question.

[AmishDude]

Well, the states could unilaterally choose to allocate their electors proportionally. I say we start with CA, IL, NY and see how it works from there.

[Still Thinking]

And other than some legislative garbage promoted by Hillary, there is no way to dump the Electoral College except through an amendment.

What are you talking about? How could this be done without a Constitutional amendment?

[supercat]

The quick answer to this is pragmatic. One third of the Senate can block any proposal to amend the Constitution. That means 34 Senators. Yet more than 17 states are "small" states whose impact in the Electoral College are twice as much in proportion to population as the four largest states. Those Senators would have to betray the obvious interests of their own states to pass such an amendment.

If an amendment were made to force states to require states to allocate all but two to congressional-district winners, and allocate the remaining two to the overall winner, I wonder how that would play in the House, Senate, and state legislatures? I think more than 38 states would improve their level of representation, but I don't think the Democrats would want to lose the Califoriniamegavote.