Leftist New Republic Editor Calls to Scrap Electoral College, Add New States to Fix ‘Ideological Imb

[mystery-ak]

Leftist New Republic Editor Calls to Scrap Electoral College, Add New States to Fix ‘Ideological Imbalance’

Amy Furr 16 Aug 2025

A leftist columnist recently told the New York Times he believes America needs a new Constitution.

During his interview, author and contributing editor of the New Republic, Osita Nwanevu, laid out the reforms he thinks should be proposed when asked to provide the “new Constitution” he believes that nation should have, the Times reported on Thursday.

He stated:

    We could start with the thing that I think most Americans think about when they think about the undemocratic nature of our system, a reform that most Americans have supported for a long time, which is dealing with the Electoral College. There’s a proposal on the table now, actually something that’s being acted upon in states across the country, to move to a national popular vote by interstate compact, without needing a constitutional amendment. I mean, the amendment process itself is one of the things that needs amending very, very hard — one of the hardest constitutions in the world to make substantive changes to is ours. So if you get a number of states totaling up to the 270 you need to win a presidential election, to say, “We’re actually going to throw our electoral votes to the popular vote winner,” you functionally worked around the electoral college. That’s one thing.

    I’ve advocated in the past for adding new states to the Senate. I think that there is an ideological imbalance now for all kinds of reasons in who gets represented the most and most reliably in that body. But that’s not a permanent fix to the Senate at all. It’s actually taking advantage of the equal state distribution.

In February 2022 when Democrat Joe Biden was still president of the United States, he told Senate Judiciary leaders that the U.S. Constitution was “always evolving,” Breitbart News reported.

“You know there’s always a renewed national debate every time we nominate, any president nominates a justice, because the Constitution is always evolving slightly,” he said.

Months later, a survey found most Democrats believed the Constitution is fundamentally “racist” and “sexist.”

In 2023, the leftist Guardian published an opinion piece by Nwanevu in which he celebrated the prosecution of President Donald Trump, calling it a “triumph,” per Breitbart News.

However, the Breitbart article noted that “For his part Trump has declared his innocence of all charges and spoken out against the action.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/08/16/leftist-new-republic-editor-calls-to-scrap-electoral-college-add-new-states-to-fix-ideological-imbalance/

[Smokin Joe]

Months later, a survey found most Democrats believed the Constitution is fundamentally “racist” and “sexist.”

Well, as originally written, by today's standards, it would be considered thus.

To vote when the Constitution was written, you had to be free, white, male, 21 years old, and a property owner.

In other words, you had to have skin in the game and be considered mature and hopefully educated enough to make solid decisions about the country's fate.

I'm not sure when the property owner requirement went away, but likely it was trampled in one of the waves of European immigration to give places like New York City an edge with tenants who could vote.
"Free" was made moot in 1865.
White, technically at the same time, unless you were an American Indian, and not considered a citizen until after 1924.
Male fell out of the list in the 1920s.
Age (21) went away in the 1960s, during the Vietnam Era.

So, since then, those constraints have been removed (which would be considered "sexist" or "racist" today), and yet, people wail at the thought of simply requiring American Citizenship.

With Amendments, the framework has endured and adapted without losing its core character: that of a Constitutional Republic designed to protect the Rights of the few against the ravings of the mob.

That is only "flawed" if you are part of the mob.

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, the thing that is most undemocratic about our Constitution is something that is generally popular:  the Bill of Rights.  As Kevin Williamson, who used to write for National Review described it:  "Here's a list of things you idiots don't get to vote on."

There are democratic processes at work in the Electoral College:  the election of state legislators who can pass laws deciding on how electors are chosen, and given the way all of the state legislatures have decided that, the presidential and vice-presidential lines on the ballot every four years.  (They didn't have to. The state legislatures could have given themselves the power to choose some or all of the electors.)

The Bill of Rights, not so much.  You don't get to vote on this stuff, period.  Sure, if you can get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and majorities in the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to go for it, you could get rid of the Second Amendment, or a clause of the First, or the Fifth, but supermajority provisions in the Constitution are there precisely because unfettered democracy is a bad idea, whatever our sorry excuse for a Left thinks about it, and the Founders knew it.

[Wingnut]

Osita Nwanevu.  Not an American.

[Hoodat]

Osita Nwanevu.  Not an American.

He's US-born.  An enemy to our Constitution, but still US-born.

[Wingnut]

He's US-born.  An enemy to our Constitution, but still US-born.

Yeah, I looked up his bio and saw that.  He's a  liberal commie rag writer.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Constitution is racist and sexist without mentioning race and sex...

[Fishrrman]

"A leftist columnist recently told the New York Times he believes America needs a new Constitution."

You're not going to like this post.

He's right.
But not in the way he THINKS he is.

I'm on record in this forum for stating again and again over the past several years that the Constitution -- as written and [so far] amended -- can no longer protect the United States from the forces that seek to overwhelm and destroy it.

There's too much The Founders left out. Or didn't properly define.
Perhaps because -- back then -- they had no conception of what the future would bring.

Example:
The Founders left it "to the states" to determine how to conduct elections (within those states).
But what would the expression on their faces have been if you tried to explain "ranked choice voting" to them?

Example:
How would they react if you told them that elections could be stretched out over days and weeks, with mailed-in ballots that no one seemed to have control over?

Example:
What would they have said if you tried to instruct them on "gay marriage", and that in time the Constitution they had written would be used to justify it?

Example:
What would they reply if you told them of "birthright citizenship"?
Or ask THEM to explain "natural born citizenship" to YOU?

What would their expressions be if you told them that in time, the First Amendment they had endorsed would facilitate an emerging muslim power base in America?

How would they reply to the concept of communism, and again, that their Constitution as written and interpreted protected its growth here?

If I may be so bold, they'd be flabbergasted at all of the above.
They'd cry out, "no, no, no, no, that's NOT what we intended with this document !"

There are simply too many defects and omissions in the current Constitution for it to be relied on much longer.

These omissions and defects -- and in some cases, the now-antiquated language of the document -- need to be ... well... "RE-constituted" and cleaned up, with sufficent new language that plainly clarifies a number of new paradigms that have arisen in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

We need a revitalized Constitution.

I realize that amongst conservatives and traditional-minded people (that means 99% of those reading this reply) the knee-jerk reaction will be:
"The Constitution as it is now is fine ... all we need to do is comply with it!"

Keep saying that.
That's what the leftists/communists/muzzies WANT you to say, and to believe.
And in the meantime, they'll continue to use the cracks and faults in the document to subvert and convert the country.

Didn't I TELL YOU that you weren't going to like this post?

[Bigun]

F U Osita Nwanevu!