[Maceman]

The Amendment you propose would never go through because that would essentially give the Federal Government the power to amend the Constitution without the consent of the States. No way the states would go for it.

No it wouldn't, because the process could only be triggered by a Supreme Court ruling. Whereas now the Supreme Court has the power to amend the Constitution without the consent of ANYBODY.

Given a choice between the two scenarios, mine is infinitely preferable in terms of saving us from tyranny, because at least the final decision makers are answerable to the majority of the people -- without having our laws created by the tyranny of a plebiscite.

And you haven't explained what would stop the Supreme Court from ruling the Electoral College invalid tomorrow as I have suggested. If your answer is: "Trust them, they wouldn't do it," forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

[Borges]

If your argument is 'They could do it man!' then obviously I have nothing to refute that. As long as we're going there then what's to stop them from deciding that The U.S. Senate is a violation of one-man one-vote? (2 Senators from each state regardless of population) As a matter of princple I feel more comfortable with the Constitution being guarded by those aren't subject to various popular whims then those who are. But I see your point.