4 ms·

The constitution is perfectly easy to amend when we have consensus. The problem is achieving consensus. I don’t think making the constitution easier to amend

by D13Fd 4y ago

The constitution is perfectly easy to amend when we have consensus. The problem is achieving consensus. I don’t think making the constitution easier to amend would make it any easier to achieve national consensus.

int_19h 4y ago
The Constitution requires 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify any amendment. Given the extreme disparities between states in terms of population, it's entirely possible for something to be supported by >80% of the people - I'd say that reasonably qualifies as "consensus" - but still unable to be ratified. Conversely, it's possible for the small states representing less than 25% of the overall population to band together and ratify any constitutional amendment - and it would be binding on the rest of the country. It really is a broken system through and through.
- floxy 4y ago
  >it's possible for the small states representing less than 25% of the overall population to band together and ratify any constitutional amendment I took the 2020 Census population figures from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... ...and came up with the 38 smallest states (75% of 50) had a total population of 134 million or 40.5% of the U.S. population; the largest 12 states had a combined population of 197 million (59.5% of the U.S. population).
  - int_19h 4y ago
    I'm accounting for indirection via state legislatures, since it's the latter who ratify by simple majority - so the MPs in the state legislature who vote to ratify don't necessarily represent all the residents of that state (in fact, given the quirks of FPTP and tricks like gerrymandering, things can be ratified against popular majority in the state).
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      All residents of the state are represented by their representatives even if they don't support and didn't vote for the representative.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Suppose they did support and voted for their representative, and that representative voted against ratification, but the legislature still voted to ratify. Does the ratification then meaningfully represent all residents of the state? I don't think so, but I can see how others might take a different perspective here. It doesn't really matter to the point I was originally making, though - if 40% of the population can rewrite the constitution over the heads of the other 60%, it's still badly broken.
        _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Suppose they did support and voted for their representative, and that representative voted against ratification, but the legislature still voted to ratify. Does the ratification then meaningfully represent all residents of the state? Yes. That is the way some representative democracies work. Your representative may not have voted for something that passed. Your representative may not have been voted for by you. I understand wanting changes to it, but you still are properly and meaningfully represented in my view. >I don't think so, but I can see how others might take a different perspective here. It doesn't really matter to the point I was originally making, though - if 40% of the population can rewrite the constitution over the heads of the other 60%, it's still badly broken. It is only broken if you think people are supposed to be making the decisions. In the past some state legislatures would vote for the president not the people. Prior to the 17th amendment the states were represented by the senators. The states are the ones who decided many of these things, not the people. There has been a shift in the US pushing more and more for the people to directly have more power, but that isn't the way the system was set up. It isn't broken when you think about it from that perspective. The people don't change the constitution, the states do. The states are the ones who formed the Union so they are the ones who can change it. The US is quite unique in that perspective.
- friend_and_foe 4y ago
  There will be no amendment to ratify though without 3/4ths majority of the house and the senate – easily accointing for a majority of the US population – or a constitutional convention, also something not at all likely to occur without not just popular support but long standing grievances of the populace with the federal government.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The constitutional convention requires 2/3 of the state legislatures to approve it to convene, so popular support is no more relevant to it than it is to ratification. If you have enough legislatures willing to ratify some amendment, the same legislatures can also submit it for ratification.
    - friend_and_foe 4y ago
      I'm aware, I don't believe that the populations of any combination of 2/3rds of the states constitute a minority, and it's safe to assume that significant populations from the 1/3rd of stares would support whatever measure a convention was attempting to address whatever problem.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
And when we don't have consensus, is it really a bug if we can't amend the constitution? One could argue that it's correct behavior.
karaterobot 4y ago
Well said. The issue (as noted in the article) is party politics. The solution is not to make it easier for whatever party happens to be in power to wield it like a bludgeon, or to throw away the concept of representative democracy and run the government like a twitter poll. The idea that we should keep the parties and the tribalism, but ditch the requirement that we learn how to compromise with each other, is completely wrong.
topspin 4y ago
> The problem is achieving consensus. This "problem" is inherent; with time you run out of consensuses as they are ratified. What's left are all the things for which there is no consensus.

by D13Fd 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

The Constitution requires 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify any amendment. Given the extreme disparities between states in terms of population, it's entirely possible for something to be supported by >80% of the people - I'd say that reasonably qualifies as "consensus" - but still unable to be ratified. Conversely, it's possible for the small states representing less than 25% of the overall population to band together and ratify any constitutional amendment - and it would be binding on the rest of the country. It really is a broken system through and through.

floxy 4y ago
>it's possible for the small states representing less than 25% of the overall population to band together and ratify any constitutional amendment I took the 2020 Census population figures from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... ...and came up with the 38 smallest states (75% of 50) had a total population of 134 million or 40.5% of the U.S. population; the largest 12 states had a combined population of 197 million (59.5% of the U.S. population).
- int_19h 4y ago
  I'm accounting for indirection via state legislatures, since it's the latter who ratify by simple majority - so the MPs in the state legislature who vote to ratify don't necessarily represent all the residents of that state (in fact, given the quirks of FPTP and tricks like gerrymandering, things can be ratified against popular majority in the state).
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    All residents of the state are represented by their representatives even if they don't support and didn't vote for the representative.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Suppose they did support and voted for their representative, and that representative voted against ratification, but the legislature still voted to ratify. Does the ratification then meaningfully represent all residents of the state? I don't think so, but I can see how others might take a different perspective here. It doesn't really matter to the point I was originally making, though - if 40% of the population can rewrite the constitution over the heads of the other 60%, it's still badly broken.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        >Suppose they did support and voted for their representative, and that representative voted against ratification, but the legislature still voted to ratify. Does the ratification then meaningfully represent all residents of the state? Yes. That is the way some representative democracies work. Your representative may not have voted for something that passed. Your representative may not have been voted for by you. I understand wanting changes to it, but you still are properly and meaningfully represented in my view. >I don't think so, but I can see how others might take a different perspective here. It doesn't really matter to the point I was originally making, though - if 40% of the population can rewrite the constitution over the heads of the other 60%, it's still badly broken. It is only broken if you think people are supposed to be making the decisions. In the past some state legislatures would vote for the president not the people. Prior to the 17th amendment the states were represented by the senators. The states are the ones who decided many of these things, not the people. There has been a shift in the US pushing more and more for the people to directly have more power, but that isn't the way the system was set up. It isn't broken when you think about it from that perspective. The people don't change the constitution, the states do. The states are the ones who formed the Union so they are the ones who can change it. The US is quite unique in that perspective.
friend_and_foe 4y ago
There will be no amendment to ratify though without 3/4ths majority of the house and the senate – easily accointing for a majority of the US population – or a constitutional convention, also something not at all likely to occur without not just popular support but long standing grievances of the populace with the federal government.
- int_19h 4y ago
  The constitutional convention requires 2/3 of the state legislatures to approve it to convene, so popular support is no more relevant to it than it is to ratification. If you have enough legislatures willing to ratify some amendment, the same legislatures can also submit it for ratification.
  - friend_and_foe 4y ago
    I'm aware, I don't believe that the populations of any combination of 2/3rds of the states constitute a minority, and it's safe to assume that significant populations from the 1/3rd of stares would support whatever measure a convention was attempting to address whatever problem.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

And when we don't have consensus, is it really a bug if we can't amend the constitution? One could argue that it's correct behavior.

karaterobot 4y ago

Well said. The issue (as noted in the article) is party politics. The solution is not to make it easier for whatever party happens to be in power to wield it like a bludgeon, or to throw away the concept of representative democracy and run the government like a twitter poll. The idea that we should keep the parties and the tribalism, but ditch the requirement that we learn how to compromise with each other, is completely wrong.

topspin 4y ago

> The problem is achieving consensus. This "problem" is inherent; with time you run out of consensuses as they are ratified. What's left are all the things for which there is no consensus.