Democrats should start the process of amending the Constitution

Looking through John Eastman’s arguments, one amendment that seems fairly clearly necessary is something to do with electors. If nothing else, at least something like:

  • Any law affecting the appointment of electors will not take effect until after the next Presidential election, unless it is a new state which is having its first such election. In the case of a new state, it must decide its system of appointment previous to the election year or forfeit the election. During the election year, the original rule holds for the new state.

And just in general, it would be good to finalize the rules for the electors, rather than leaving it to the states to corrupt.

  • From each district, a group of twelve electoral candidates must be chosen by sortition. These will be reduced to a single individual per district by condorcet vote of the largest elected body in the state government - if it has one - or by an assembly of all elected officials within the state if it does not have any elected body larger than 12 persons.
  • All electors must be free of all constraints and given no reward, so that they may to choose as they see right to do.
  • All electors will have their votes taken in secret by a method agreed to by the electors and the state government.

Non-citizen residents, meanwhile, presumably have no right to marriage and can go get rekt.

If they are marrying a citizen, though, they can.

If neither is a citizen I think there is some merit to allowing restrictions in some circumstances, but fine, eliminate the citizen term.

…just in case anyone thought I was making this up, from today:

They spent six-months focus-testing and looking for an “attack-line” to rally around. And they came up with “Ultra MAGA.”

The result?

Yesterday:

Yep, the pandemic is over. Fund the police. That’s the message they are going into the mid-terms with. This is the strategic direction they have chosen to take.

This administration is not the administration that will “start the process of amending the constitution.” Because that wouldn’t focus-test well enough.

Looking for a slogan sounds to me a bad use of a focus group because you can’t tell if the slogan will wear well, especially after the other side starts either mocking it or, as here, embracing it.

But polling with closed-end questions doesn’t get at what people really think. A focus group on what the Constitution means, and whether median voters want to change it, may make sense.

If a small part of the base wants something that is political box office prison, like a losing effort to change the constitution, the administration could leak the results of focus groups showing how bad an idea that is. Some, not all, of the base would then understand and forgive.

…perhaps I needed to put “sarcasm” tags around what I said.

There isn’t a single Democrat-aligned polling and focus research group that I would trust with a “let’s leak these focus-test results!!! This will surely help!” strategy.

Take the money away from these corporate-wastes-of-time and give it to the people at the front lines before you run out of time. (Who am I kidding? That’s never going to happen. They are going to focus-test themselves into oblivion.)