[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_Senate_election
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Michigan_Senate_election
If you're looking to make the presidential results look more like the national vote, there is an easier step that only requires changing your state.
End winner-takes-all EC allocation in your state, and allocate proportionally. This would give red and blue minorities in a state a say (and even third parties!) and reduce the impact of a handful of votes in "swing states".
Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0]. All states in the compact give the entirety of their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote on the national level, but only once the NPVIC has sufficient electoral votes to be the deciding factor. This way, the electoral college still exists, doesn't require a constitutional amendment to change, but effectively becomes a rubber stamp. Because it only takes effect once the NPVIC controls the majority of electoral college votes, it avoids the first-mover effect.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
So do it in small groups. You just have to convince a comparable set of red and blue states, and it'll be easier to convince them that you'll both win some and lose some than to convince the red states to make themselves irrelevant. Such is the nature of compromise--find common ground, both sides win and lose a little.
Of course, if you solely care about the fact some votes count less than others--which was the underlying argument against the EC--then just having your state allocate proportionally improves the lives of your fellow citizens now, and it's for the greater good.
> Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0]
This is just a constitutional amendment with less steps and slightly lower threshold.
It's not coincidence that blue states are in it and not red. The red states will not sign on to this because it would make them irrelevant. A blue state would not allocate their EC votes proportional to their state results because it would reduce the blue party's influence, even though it would be fairer to their citizens.
“Abolish the Supreme Court”
…when my party isn’t in control of it.
If you look at the history of votes on Supreme Court nominees, the hyper-partisan divide, splitting along party lines, is an anomaly. We're in a new era. The last 4 nominees[1] just barely squeaked by, while historically, nominees usually got 60, 70, even 80+ votes in the Senate. What we are seeing now is very, very different. It used to actually be based on qualifications, and now it's 100% ideological and politics.
A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now.
edit: [1] I should say 5 nominees, because Garland didn't even get a vote for an entire year because the Senate majority quashed it in order for the next President to nominate someone else. Blatant theft of a constitutionally-enumerated power allotted to the President, if you ask me.
Absolutely. But the problem of partisan courts is endemic in the US Judicial system. Encountering Far-left or right judges at all levels is fairly common.
It doesn't matter which side started packing the courts because now it is a race to see who can do it the fastest. By luck, planning or whatever the conservatives did it at the highest level. The liberals really shouldn't say anything because they are also doing the same thing at every level.
In general, we need to get away from Courts, especially at the Federal level, writing laws. In fact, anyone who is not elected (including the bloated, highly partisan admin fed/state agencies) should not be writing law.
People who cling to the Senate system because of the inordinate representation it gives to white, small states would happily give that up for the guarantee that they could get at least one neonazi Senator. We would have to deal with the fact that both Kim and Kanye would have a Senate seat, though.
And even if it were for that purpose, having a "winner takes all" that requires 51% to achieve would still be better than the current system, which still allows for a winner-takes-all state but with much less than 51%. Checks and balances were designed under the assumption that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches would be balanced by a constant struggle against each other. They didn't account for political parties, which can result in multiple branches of government being controlled by an overarching party, effectively negating those balances.