In an earlier post I suggested that the odds of the Democratic Party taking bot the Senate and the House were about 1/9, given that the odds for the House was, at that time 1/6 and the Senate 1/3. But on a recent 538 podcast I learn that I was in error, because I had treated the House and Senate as separate events but they are conjoined in the forces that create the outcomes and that the odds of the Democratic sweep is about 1/3. There is practically no scenario where the Democratic Party gains the senate and does not also gain the House.

So 1 in 3 are odds that favor the Republicans but they are from far impossible. Aside from much needed oversight of the Administration, and given that President Trump will be disinclined to sign into law Democratic objectives what should the Democratic Party push for should they control both all of Congress?

The most pressing issue we are currently facing is securing our elections from foreign interference and the most important election to secure is the Presidential one. Given our Federal system and directly managing elections is a responsibility of the various states I think the best measure to secure our presidential contests is to ditch the Electoral College and go to a direct popular vote for President. That of course requires a Constitutional Amendment.

Getting a constitutional amendment out of congress is difficult. It requires a 2/3 vote in both Houses and no matter how steep a hypothetical blue wave may appear in November it will not deliver those sort of the numbers. That I think should not dissuade the Democrats should they take the Senate and House. They should draft the amendment and make the Republicans take a very public stand on the issue of direct popular election of the President. This is not something that the Republicans want to vote for, in recent history they have benefited from the electoral misfires where the Electoral College installed the loser of the popular vote but let them stand before the American people and argue that the winner should not necessarily be the winner of the vote total. An additional benefit to doing this now is that a Constitutional Amendment does not require Presidential assent. The proposal should it pass, proceeds directly to the state for ratification, Trump would be out of the process. Again the climbs to pass this would be steep, there are more red states than blue one but a hard fight is one worth winning. Again let those who stand against the proposal argue why the will of the people must be subservient to the Electoral College.

Yes, there are those who argue that popular vote means the candidates could ignore smaller states, but today we have a situation where the largest states are ignored. No Republican contests in California and no Democratic candidate fights for Texas, winner takes all means it is foolish to waste resources in those states. With direct popular vote the Republican votes in California and the Democratic ones in Texas are valuable not wasted and the 21st century allows candidates to compete nationally in a manner not foreseen by the drafters of the Constitution. The Electoral College system in addition to naturally occurring misfires opens lines of attack for foreign enemies. They do not need to sway an entire nation, or even millions of people, just a handful in a few select states are enough to throw our process into chaos, weakening our nation and damaging out standing in the world. Direct popular vote would also tamp down the extremes of both parties, bringing a bit of sanity back to our government. If the Democratic Party wins in both houses, unlikely but possible, that should move to secure our elections and our future.