alt Hacker NewsNo chance 3 ever passes, and a wealth tax would require an amendment unless it is "apportioned among the states" or some such thing (and it can't be because wealthy people are concentrated in a handful of states).
Editing to add: It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally different. This would not end well.
Separately, it would also mean we wouldn't know who the president is until all states are done counting, and it would complicate the recount process. Both are simpler under the EC, assuming the slow states are not close calls or big enough to swing the EC count (which they usually are not).
Replies
Who cares about campaigning? It's whats happens after the election that matters: Does the representative represent their constituents? That's not an electoral system issue.
Each eligible voter should get one vote of equal weight to all others. The EC breaks that.
> No chance 3 ever passes
It’s honestly the hardest one on there.
> a wealth tax would require an amendment
Genuine question, why?
> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities
This doesn’t mathematically work. Most Americans live in suburbia. (We define “urban” very, very broadly for statistical purposes.)
And this effect is more than compensated for by the existence of the Senate and even House.
> it would complicate the recount process
No messier than now. And you’d only be delayed in close elections, in which case carefully recounting everywhere is fine.
> No chance 3 ever passes
No chance any ever passes. Amendment’s are difficult to pass by design.
The equal rights amendment which virtually nobody actually really opposes in theory in 2026 has been bantered around for 103 years as a concept and 54 years after congress approved it and sent it for ratification. Its close, but still no cigar. This is an amendment that is hardly controversial bit still cannot manage to be passed due to procedural issues and set deadlines being missed.
Now consider just how much effort and how long a controversial amendment would take…
The irony here is (3) is by far the closest to actually occurring as in practice, it doesn't require amending the constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
Of course, the SC could easily declare it unconstitutional....interpret any amendments as they see fit anyway. The decision on the 14th very nearly went the other way.
> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities.
As opposed to campaigning exclusively in the half-dozen swing states that matter?
> It would also be a bad idea to abolish the EC because then candidates would only ever campaign in cities. They would completely ignore rural areas, which are financially and culturally different.
This already happens, though. Candidates largely ignore entire states they know they can't win, as well as ones they think they will win.
(Ask Hillary if she regrets not campaigning more in Wisconsin, for example.)