Our broken system for electing representation and alternatives (3)

Don’t like how we elect? Can it change?

You have most likely seen various emails and other media espousing the merits of Amendment 28? While this deals with numerous reforms, most of which have merit, there is only one that deals specifically with election reform:                                                                       1.

TERM LIMITS     no more than 10 years in total:      A. One six-year Senate term &                   two two-year House terms.

Amendment 28 is only an idea, but in 2013 there was some action taken as follows, from: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp

“In August 2013, nearly four years after this item began making the rounds on the Internet, two Congressmen (Ron DeSantis of Florida and Matt Salmon of Arizona) did introduce a joint resolution (H.J.RES.55) similar to the proposed amendment, proposing an amendment to the Constitution stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting the citizens of the United States that does not also apply to the Senators and Representatives.” That bill will almost certainly die in committee, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any such broadly worded amendment could ever pass muster in Congress without the underlying idea being subject to a good many qualifications.

Could this amendment be passed without Congress voting on it? Yes and no. Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation — no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments. The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It’s probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed. “

In my opinion there are workable alternatives that can cure our diseased election system, but implementation any time soon is extremely doubtful.