I wonder what it says about a society that when one doesn't like the results they just change the rules. Does this also apply to us? Think of the pushback on the Electoral College when things don't go our way.
I wonder what it says about a society that when one doesn't like the results they just change the rules. Does this also apply to us? Think of the pushback on the Electoral College when things don't go our way.
A society that changes the rules after the fact is a society that may not be as well educated as they should be. With regards to the Electoral College, that is something we should gotten rid of 100 years ago. Frankly, I doubt it was ever needed. Our constitution has many flaws and this is one of them.
Changing the rules after the fact, yet isn't that what getting rid of the Electoral Collage would be? It was needed to keep states with large populations from overwhelming states with small populations. What voice would states such as Vermont, Idaho, Alaska have in an all out popular election? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of what HRC has laid out. It's troubling that a party that isn't responding to the public needs simply wants to change the rules to win.
Changing anything about the Constitution is always going to be after the fact. However, at some point, some corrections need to be made. At this time with one party holding all the control over the 3 branches of our government may not be the wisest time to make those changes. Sometime in the future, we will have to bite the bullet hold a Conditional Convention, and write a new document that will hold up in the future.
I wonder what it says about a society that when one doesn't like the results they just change the rules. Does this also apply to us? Think of the pushback on the Electoral College when things don't go our way.
A society that changes the rules after the fact is a society that may not be as well educated as they should be. With regards to the Electoral College, that is something we should gotten rid of 100 years ago. Frankly, I doubt it was ever needed. Our constitution has many flaws and this is one of them.
Changing the rules after the fact, yet isn't that what getting rid of the Electoral Collage would be? It was needed to keep states with large populations from overwhelming states with small populations. What voice would states such as Vermont, Idaho, Alaska have in an all out popular election? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of what HRC has laid out. It's troubling that a party that isn't responding to the public needs simply wants to change the rules to win.
Changing anything about the Constitution is always going to be after the fact. However, at some point, some corrections need to be made. At this time with one party holding all the control over the 3 branches of our government may not be the wisest time to make those changes. Sometime in the future, we will have to bite the bullet hold a Conditional Convention, and write a new document that will hold up in the future.
Point taken. Agreed a constitutional convention now would likely not go well. Thank you for your thoughts.