More Amendments Introduced to Reform Presidential Election Process Than for Any Other Issue
Read the article below from Fairvote's website for more information:
The framers of the Constitution wisely ensured that the act of making
changes to our nation’s founding document would be difficult, time
consuming, and only possible with the assent of super-majorities of
both Congress, and states. Certainly, to make such an attempt would
mean that the issue at hand was of astounding importance.
If there is one issue that has been brought to bear on the Constitution
more than any other, surely that cause must strike at the very heart of
our freedoms and our identity as a nation. What might the focus of such
a consistent legislative call-to arms be? National security? Freedom of
speech? Morals and values?
The answer may surprise you. According to the Congressional Research
Service, over 600 attempts have been made to amend to the
Constitution regarding reform of the Electoral College since 1889 -
more than for any other concern! And that's even after the 12th
Amendment fixed the most glaring flaws in the original Electoral
College rules.*
Some recent attempts came very close to succeeding. In 1969, the House
passed an amendment calling for direct election of the president by a
margin of 370-70, and included such supporters as then-Congressmen George
H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford and presidents Richard Nixon,
Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson. A Senate filibuster ended that
particular attempt, but it voted in favor of such an amendment ten
years later, falling just shy of the required two-thirds majority.
Despite popular support, misguided resistance from those who would hang
onto this antiquarian system has proved too staunch to result in a
change to the Constitution.
Now, with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s electoral
intentions a looming question and the lingering memory of what might
have been for Ross Perot in 1992 (see FairVote’s "Perot Simulator"), the
time is ripe to finally neutralize this electoral relic. It is clearer
than ever that the Electoral College’s imaginary benefits are far
outweighed by its severe drawbacks; popular vote losers taking office,
allowing only a handful of swing states to have any relevance, and
opening the system to vulnerability to independent "spoiler"
candidacies (see George Wallace’s 48 electoral votes in 1968 and Strom
Thurmond’s 39 in 1948) that even have the potential of throwing the
election into utter chaos with the U.S. House picking the president and
the Senate picking the vice-president.
Luckily, a new plan has emerged to make literally every vote for
president count: the National
Popular Vote interstate compact, already passed in Maryland, is
an agreement between the states (enough that add up to the required
electoral vote majority of 270) to allocate their electoral votes to
the winner of the national popular vote. Every American citizen has
their voice heard under this plan and once-ignored states will be
showered with attention by candidates - and all without the need to
alter our Constitution.
To find out more about the compact, visit NationalPopularVote.com, and
check out FairVote’s Presidential
Election Inequality report to learn more about why the
system is more broken than ever before.
- The 12th Amendment corrected the problematic "approval
voting"-type system required by the Constitution until 1800. Electors
cast two equally weighted votes, with the winner becoming president and
the next finisher vice-president. Thomas Jefferson won the
vice-presidency in 1796 over John Adams’ running mate, but then
Jefferson in 1800 nearly lost the presidency to his running mate Aaron
Burr.