Our Constitution Is No Longer Working For Us | Talking Points Memo

Your comment is 100% true! I rarely agree that thoroughly with anyone.

1 Like

The best thing I can say about the constitution is that it is obsolete. Beyond that it is a farce.

1 Like

Are you an advocate for a Constitutional Convention?
If you are, then be very, very wary of what you are asking for!

4 Likes

The Senate has always been an “empty chamber.” MHO, but nice to see it reinforced in this article.

Just as the people were not capable of writing a really good constitution back in the 18th century, the people today are even more incapable of writing a better constitution. Once our people chose Trump as our president it should have been obvious that we just don’t know how to design a good government. And, we never will. We will probably always have our spit between racists and non-racists, pseudo Christians and non-Christians, urban and rural, educated and non-educated, etc. With those deep splits, any new constitution would just be another bad compromise.

The authors, Hamilton and Madison (to minor extent Jay) were gifted thinkers for a national structure to unify the colonies. In many instances their arguments written in The Federalist Papers persuaded the fractional divide to come together and finally create a US Constitution of governance. No doubt, compromises were made. Vague wording in The Bill of Rights has continued to present a problem.

However, Amendments to The US Constitution while not impossible are very difficult. The last new significant Amendment proposed and ratified to adjust a glaring contemporary issue was the 26th Amendment (1971)—lowering the voting age to 18. The issue was young men being drafted to fight into a war, but powerless to vote against political interests promoting it. What’s astounding is that it was nearly 50 years ago! That should never be the case for what is termed a “living document.”

The formation of a US Constitution was a monumental undertaking in the period it was written. It would clearly be an impossible task today. For one, there isn’t a political thinker on the planet as smart as Hamilton. But…many of the structures, glaring faults and inequities that some hold dear (Electoral College, Presidential pardons and other powers) are woefully in need of change or else a second revolution is coming.

3 Likes

Words on a sheet of paper are meaningless unless those in power intend to conform to those words. There is no method on earth to enforce those words without the will to do so and the power to back up that will. As long as the corrupt are in power, the paper is meaningless. That is the problem. It’s not the friggin’ words. It’s the people in power and the ignoramuses who elected them.

1 Like

Well…yes. That’s Step One.

Step Two would be those Democrats, winning big in Step One, need to be willing to take forceful action. NOT to spend their terms trying to gently prod the GOTPers into cooperating.

Step One is possible. Step Two? I guess we’ll see, but I feel Two is less likely than One.

1 Like

Maybe I am an outlier here, but to some extent I see value in giving less densely populated states a meaningful say. While the needs and judgment of most of the population is important, rural and less populated areas have concerns that deserve consideration and may actually help by diluting mass movements that are too one dimensional.
HOWEVER-the overly powerful voice of a misguided minority is a problem, and its impregnable fortress of influence through political abuses (gerrymandering, electoral college schemes, career senators) needs to be breached. I would propose, of course, getting rid of the electoral college. Those who worry about rural representation can be pointed toward the Senate; the presidency is a peoples’ decision, and should be based on one person-one vote. For Congress, I would recommend kind of flipping the current arrangement on term lengths. Make the House have longer terms (4 years), being the true representation of the people, and the Senate have shorter terms (two years) to prevent establishment of permanent power bases that are not responsive to the electorate’s priorities. It is ridiculous that proposals supported by the overwhelming support of the country (sensible gun control, abortion rights, health care availability) have no hope of ever being passed because entrenched career senators can prevent it. This would also hopefully reduce the repeat of unresponsive power brokers like turtle.

2 Likes

Exactly. White people have been a bit slow to figure this out. POC have not had the Constitution working for us most of the time. It’s like a Never Trumper waking up to the Republican Party’s real nature.

6 Likes

How may we help “Dems win and win big”? I have two rather big suggestions. I am sure each of you have additional ideas.

First, accept and appreciate that the Sanders campaign illustrated to all of us that a dedicated grassroots campaign can reach voters without significant media coverage. How is it DNC leaders and pundits were surprised in February when Sanders began polling strongly? This “lesson” should result in a variety of grass roots organizing initiatives including the expectation that college students should spend this Summer and Fall “Sandering” in Swing States for Joe Biden and for Blue senators.

Second, those of us who are working from home or retired and living in deeply Blue or Red States should consider relocating to a Swing State to live, organize GOTV and vote (particularly those who can afford to relocate). How many Blue voters would need to relocate to swing the State of Michigan? Let’s be clear, many of us who live in deeply red or blue states will be effectively disenfranchised this November unless we relocate.

Thoughts?

Stay safe.

1 Like

Good insight and ideas.

The House members definitely need a longer term. Only two-year terms means that they fall into re-election mode almost immediately and this vulnerability has a great impact on their decision making/voting and makes them highly susceptible to the existing power structure of their respective parties. Four years sounds about right.

4 Likes

Question.

On the one hand, we have Donald and BillBarr claiming the Chief Executive has absolute power. On the other hand, we have the Constitution saying powers not expressly given to the Feds belongs to the states.

It seems to me the Constitution presumes 50 separate entities.

Now, we have states setting up regional cooperative efforts. Why can’t these regional entities give themselves powers, including absolute regional power, which the Feds cannot challenge?

It isn’t exactly secession.

3 Likes

I think this is going to be a moving target. But the underlying problem (OK, one of the underlying problems) is that campaign seasons keep growing. Campaigns used to be late summer and fall, and now if you haven’t started campaigning by the previous november you’re not likely to go anywhere. Which means some way of reining that in, and reining in the huge piles of campaign ads and political media spending masquerading as not-campaign-ads. I’m not sure whether that will require public election funding or constitutional changes or a team of black ops types enforcing existing law, but we definitely need something so that legislators don’t spend a third or more of their time begging people with agendas for money.

4 Likes

Get involved with your local Dem or Indivisible or whatever groups that are organizing in your state. Do you have state & local races in an upcoming primary? Learn who the candidates are and support the ones you like via digital media and networking. If your state has already had their primary, pick your candidate and donate, volunteer or whatever is available.

Google is bound to have grassroots 101 somewhere to learn more. Indivisible National certainly has it, all spelled out with instructions that are not hard to comprehend. But just look around your own state and plug in where you can.

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

1 Like

With current statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.
But, in 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey).

The 8 smallest states (i.e., those with three electoral votes) together received only one of the nation’s 952 general-election campaign events in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 elections.

Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored, like medium and big states where the statewide winner is predictable, because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 5 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

The small states do not share a political tendency.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation’s 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

The U.S. Constitution says “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is by state legislatures with governors making changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation’s first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state’s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution and amend it.

States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 284 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

2 Likes

Even if it passes, it may not withstand a challenge in the SCOTUS. Particularly THIS SCOTUS.

Nice posts, @otto!