New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.
Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland's book?
I agree with everything you said, but I'm not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I'm talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.
Seems like the "state-ratifying conventions" route is the only thing that has a chance of working, and that's ignoring that the Constitution doesn't regulate them.
Although, seeing as an amendment need 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress to pass, regardless of sending it to the legislatures or conventions (not for the convention to propose amendments), could Congress use that veto-proof majority to pass a law regulating conventions?
Whatever the idea, pretty sure this ends up in the Supreme Court regardless?
... is it weird that I've been thinking about this for the last decade? I'm not even American.
I wish I saw this first. I'm very prone to off-by-one errors.
I opened the comments thinking that I solved it, then some comments with broken spoiler tags essentially spoiled the actual answer for me, despite my best efforts to ignore them.
With these types of puzzles, I normally start looking for solutions that don't just involve the obvious operations. Had I seen your comment first, I would've continued playing with the first thing I noticed (and later abandoned for the wrong solution) and I think I would've got there by myself eventually.
Either others need to be more mindful of their spoiler tags, or I need to stop using Sync for Lemmy. It's probably the latter; I've seen such weird formatting that only makes sense if I assume Sync's Markdown renderer is broken.
Sounds fine to me, if this is a picture of a Twitter-like site then I don't really see an issue
the original was twitter
As in, the post was originally on Twitter? I'm not sure what this means
I thought as much! Didn't want to assume though just in case. I've gone through that book twice and I want to look at adding types to my implementation. Good luck!
You writing an interpreter/VM? For what language?
D. 64% of Democrats that have a friend in the GOP and the 82% of GOP that say they do are one to Many.
Maybe the relationship is one-to-one and actually there are way more people willing to identify as a Democrat 🤷🏿♂️
(I don't actually think this, just a random thought)
S2 finale spoiler: >!they even got the colours right!<
I think using a method of proportional representation is the most effective defence against gerrymandering. You cannot have unrepresentative elections when the system has representation built into it.
However, that would be difficult to do in the US from what I understand. There would need to be several changes to the law to give it a fighting chance.
ahh so that's why charizard is so hot