Time for a convention?

You seem to think that the candidates' campaign promises are meaningful and factual.
Last time I checked, all financial bills originated in the House and had to be passed by both the House and the Senate. The manner in which Congressmen are elected will not change, so why would the disbursement of funds change?

And don't the candidates' now make huge promises to the "battleground states"?

Like all wealthier states, California sends much more money to the feds than they send back to California. The smaller states all show a net gain. They have nothing to cry about.

You continue to talk about states. It's about people. People have the right to have their votes counted fairly and equitably no matter where they live.

The country has changed since 1789. It's no longer a handful of small and smaller states with contradictory policies about slavery. There is no longer any reason to maintain irrational institutions devised to accommodate those ancient policies.

I don't think it's changed all that much.  Yes, slavery is technically illegal but all the "states rights" issues mentioned in post #25 still exist, and still separate the advanced urban states from the backward rural states.

There's always the possibility that something, anything, between now and December 19 will cause the Electoral College electors to change their vote, to vote for the winner of the popular vote (by 1,677,041 votes as of today) instead of the tally they're expected to honor.

It's not too late to overthrow this election.

Ah, who the hell am I kidding?

If we were dealing with anyone other than Republicans, there might be a chance of the right result be obtained. But with these assholes - not a chance.

After the Convention does away with the Electoral College, they need to add a bit to the Constitution that says, "Every American citizen shall have the right to vote in all elections in which the citizen is resident. Period." Or something to that effect.

They should also remove the right of the states to govern the election procedure, giving the fed the right to set minimum standards, such as registration times, number and hours of polling places, identification requirements (a Social Security card should be sufficient). And they should make registration automatic. Everyone should be able to vote by mail (forget internet voting; not safe).

Felons? Active-duty service personnel? Residents of mental institutions? Children under 18? Resident aliens?

No-one has ever suggested that non-citizens should have a vote. Children should be excluded also, although there may be some discussion needed in the 18-20 age group. I personally think that if you are an adult at 18 you should be able to vote (and if you can join the armed forces at 18, that's prima facie evidence of adulthood). It may also be reasonable to exclude people who are actually in gaol. But a felon who has served his sentence and rejoined the community? Why should he not be able to vote? (Answer: because he is more likely to vote Democrat.) Institutionalized? I would exclude them too, along the same sort of grounds that you exclude children: they are not capable of exercising mature judgment. Active duty personnel? Why not?

Residents of mental institutions? It would appear that they voted in great numbers in this last election.

richard09 wrote:

I would exclude them too, along the same sort of grounds that you exclude children: they are not capable of exercising mature judgment.

That would have disenfranchised 61,201,031 voters.

You're not counting those who voted for the Libertarian. I believe they should be in there, too.

No. They may be crazy, but they aren't actually living in mental institutions.

The only citizens who should not be allowed to vote are those who are too young.