Only 2.27% of the population can prevent a constitutional amendment that's a problem.

The joke is that you think we are one

 

What country? Are you referring to the union of sovereign states?

 

We are a union of states.
We are not a national democracy

 

Exactly. Just like the European Union is not a country.

 

Doesn't work that way. If 50+1% of a state's population want to pass an amendment, but only 49% of the state house representatives want that amendment passed, it won't pass, even if 70% of the state senators vote for it. The legislators would have to face the voters, but it's not an automatic thing that they will be changed at the next election. My point is that the state populations views aren't automatically transferred to the representatives and/or senators.

Yes, your numbers games are correct, but it won't and hasn't happened. Why would the middle EC vote states (say from 13 to 20 in EC votes) give up those extra votes.

 

Accidental multiple post

 

Accidental multiple post

 

Because if the top 12 states united they could pick the president. They could literally have a "Party of the big 12" and nothing the other 38 could do about it.

 

Of course they could. Get rid of the EC, and it would take even less of them.

 

That's not what the delegates agreed to in convention.

 

The delegates admitted as much that the EC was the only thing they could come up with. It was a piss poor compromise between the popular vote and congress electing the president. Everyone agreed it was bad, but the best they could come up with. The north wanted popular vote, the south wanted congress to vote for president.

 

It this thread about the amendment process or the system for choosing the president?

 

It was a Great Compromise.

Folks, I'm here all week. Tip your waitresses.....

 

It's gotten muddied between the two. It started as the Amendment process, then somebody tried to derail with the EC, and it's been a mix since.

 

Thanks. All the processes were agreed upon by the delegates from the several sovereign states. And they also agreed upon a method to amend the treaty.

 

If you don’t want these states to have a voice, let them out of the union. They probably don’t like your views either.

 

The amendment process I was just using the EC as an example.

It's to hard to amend. It takes literal social revolutions to get anything into the constitution

13-15 civil war 16-19 progressive movement 23rd civil rights movement and 26th war. The rest were technical changes.

 

Why do you think that the states made it hard to amend the treaty?

 

because they were de facto independent back then not like today also 9/13 is easier than 38/50

 

The states were sovereign then and they continue to be sovereign.

So why do you think they required 3/4ths of the parties to the treaty to agree to changes to the treaty?

 

3/4 is 3/4. It's not like a lot of amendments were passed when it was supposedly easier.

 

12 in 10 years

Because the 13/13 of the AoC was to much, you forget they LOWERED the bar they did not raise it.

 

Okay, and you're unhappy with the terms of the treaty?

The treaty, of course, can be amended by the states. Three fourths of them.

 

Can't count the first ten, as they were passed at the same time the Constitution was ratified. In fact, it took the BOR for the Constitution to be ratified. The 12th amendment was not ratified until 1804, which is 13 years after the BOR. So, basically speaking it was one in the first ten years after ratification.

 

The BOR were promised to get the constitution passed, they were NOT part of the constitution they were passed by the first congress and ratified over the next 2 years.