During his three-and-a-fraction terms as President, Franklin Roosevelt mostly steamrollered his political opponents and got most of what he wanted. Even one of the most formidable politicians in American history, though, lost one political battle badly and was sent running away with his tail between his legs. That was his notorious plan to "pack" the Supreme Court. FDR got no appointments during his first term and had a valid gripe against what we now call "judicial activism." Even so, a Congress controlled by his own party and mostly sympathetic to his views thought the end did not justify the means.
Fast forward eight decades. Reid Epstein and Ken Thomas report for the WSJ:
A few candidates are embracing ideas long seen as on the edge of liberal politics: abolishing the Electoral College and adding up to a half-dozen justices to the Supreme Court.
Given that it only takes 13 states to block a constitutional amendment and a lot more than 13 would have their influence diminished by abolishing the Electoral College, it's pretty safe to say that one is a non-starter. (The jurisdiction most diminished by that change would be the District of Columbia, but it doesn't have a vote in constitutional amendments.)
Changing the number of justices requires only a simple statute. If the Democrats take full control in 2020, could they and would they take another stab at FDR's biggest flop? Stay tuned.
While I agree that packing the court is a bad idea, I think your historical analysis is a bit off. The court, which had been invalidating New Deal legislation, changed course in the wake of the court packing threat, so to say it was a complete flop is an overstatement.
I think eliminating the electoral college is a much better idea, but I agree it is not likely to succeed. I more likely route to the same end is the national popular vote compact. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Steven: I think that the means by which these reforms can or cannot be achieved are open to debate:
- The U.S. Supreme Court can hold that a court-packing plan violates Article III, due process or anything else in the U.S. Constitution. It matters little that the number of justices in the court has already changed in the Nineteenth century: they can just say it was a mistake to not strike it down at the time, or that there are different reasons today requiring this result, or both.
- I agree that the Electoral College may de facto be abolished through ratification of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Your version of the history was the standard story at one time, but I believe more recent scholarship has pretty much debunked it. Don't have time to look up the references now.
Interstate compacts must be ratified by Congress. Easier than a constitutional amendment by far, but still doubtful. Small state Democrat Senators would not necessarily march in lock step with their party against their states' influence.
A great improvement could be made if states individually adopted the Maine/Nebraska system. The two electors corresponding to the senators are elected statewide, and those corresponding to the representatives are elected by congressional district. Winning a whole state becomes far less important. We would not again see anything like the tally hassle in Tallahassee of 2000.