I think the Electoral college could be modified, where each state is given one electoral college vote based upon the popular vote of the counties within each state, which is based upon the popular vote of the citizens within those counties. In other word, the popular vote of the citizens within the county equals one state electoral college vote, the popular state electoral college vote becomes's the state's federal level electoral college vote. To make sure if there's a tie, within the states, then it goes to what the popular vote is. DC would be given an federal electoral college vote, to make sure there's a majority. This will prevent anyone person from being swayed for whom to vote for in the current federal electoral college system.

@londeaux to be honest, I always thought 1 per state would lead to problems. I would prefer if every state were like Nebraska and Maine, giving 1 point per congressional district and 2 for the overall state vote. That way, it actually represents our government and gives every district of representation a voice instead of watching Texas or California have basically half their districts one way and half another, but give all their points to one person. Plus, with the 2 votes for the overall population in the states that account for the senate way representation. Thus would lead to candidates actually focusing on the whole state and not just the most populated areas. Though I do agree with DC getting knocked down to 1 vote, and the other 2 getting dished out to actual states with representation, instead of a district land that's been 3 free points for the democrats since 1961, but due to the 23rd amendment it gets all 3 even though it doesn't have statehood, senators, or representatives. However, in your model for a tie breaker, it's almost certain to be the Democrat presidential candidate due to Republican voters being out populated almost 10 to 1.

No, we DON'T need this amendment because it is scientifically inaccurate. We use science as a tool to decide our morals. Scientifically, a human life at conception is "human" in name only and in the loosest terms. It's like calling an acorn an Oak tree and saying they're exactly the same. A fetus is FUNDAMENTALLY different from a child. Until fetal viability the fetus is an organismal extension of the mothers vitality, it has no functioning body and has no autonomy, the mother has EVERY RIGHT to abort anything that's using her body as long as it isn't autonomously independent and viable.

No, we DON'T need this amendment because it is scientifically inaccurate. We use science as a tool to decide our morality. Scientifically, a human life at conception is "human" in name only and in the loosest terms. We'd be hurting women with this amendment by not understanding the science.

@fallen4life080 per science, we know that although anatomically it's undeveloped, biologically, it's a human with completely unique DNA to its mother the instant the unfertilized egg is fertilized and becomes and embryo. To say it's in name only or only loosely human is to dehumanize something biologically human, regardless of its point in development. Using the argument you're putting forward could be used to say a newborn or a toddler is human in name only because although it's born, it's not fully developed. And we wouldn't be hurting women, it's a consequence to an action, and last time I checked, the consequence to sex is the conception of another human being, just as the consequence for willful and premeditated murder is time in jail. You can't claim science when what you're using isn't scientificlly based. You're using an immoral and frankly illogical argument.

Killing a fetus is like killing a child? No, it isn't the same.

@mainaccount4585 it is absolutely the same. Biologically, it's a human with a unique set of DNA from its parents, regardless of its anatomical or physiological point in development. It is a human being with its own right to life. To say otherwise is to dehumanize another human, the same thing Americans did to the Africans in order to enslaved them, the same thing Germany did in WWII to the jews, homosexuals, and disabled to kill them. When you dehumanize another human, you can do anything to them, enslavement, murder, and eugenics, anything is possible, and it's why it's not just immoral, but disturbing.