“And the weirdest thing about the Electoral College is the fact that if it wasn’t specifically in the Constitution for the presidency, it would be unconstitutional.” ~ Chris Hayes, Deep Thinker
Ignoring the hilarious circular nature of his statement, the point he made in context was that the popular vote, one man – one vote, is the bedrock on which the Constitution rests. Apparently the founders almost inexplicably just did the one weird exception… for the presidency.
Now some might argue the founders implemented the weighted-by-state scheme to avoid letting a few populous states dictate policy to what had been heretofore 13 autonomous colonies with their own home-rule legislative bodies.
Fast forward to today. California alone has more people than the 22 least populous states combined.
But let’s entertain his idea that the presidential vote was an aberation from Constitutional principles and look at correcting it. That means amending the Constitution… Which involves a joint resolution approved by 2/3 of both houses, and ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
WAIT A MINUTE?! Ratification by 3/4ths of the states? Not a straight popular vote? You mean they did that again? Those same 22 states get as much say as California?
MSNBC NEWSFLASH: If the method of amending the Constitution was not in the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional.
Dang founders. What did they have against Chris Hayes?