Kentucky “Moderate” Democrat Andy Beshear Pushes to Abolish the Electoral College in “Fix the Darn Government” Constitutional Amendment

OPINION – Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is putting a much bigger constitutional agenda on the table—and one of his proposals would fundamentally change how Americans elect their president.

Beshear, a Democrat who has cultivated a reputation as a more moderate voice within his party, has called for what he describes as a “Fix the Darn Government” constitutional amendment.

His proposal would address partisan redistricting, campaign finance, congressional and Supreme Court term limits, portions of the Voting Rights Act—and, most significantly, would establish direct election of the president and vice president, eliminating the Electoral College.

Beshear has not merely mentioned the idea once. He has discussed a broad constitutional-reform package repeatedly, including proposals for nonpartisan redistricting, overturning Citizens United and imposing term limits on members of Congress and Supreme Court justices.

And his argument for replacing the Electoral College is remarkably direct.

He says it is time.

Beshear Wants a “Fix the Darn Government” Amendment

Beshear’s proposed amendment is considerably broader than simply eliminating the Electoral College.

He has described a constitutional package that would:

Ban partisan redistricting
Put portions of the Voting Rights Act into the Constitution
Establish term limits for Congress
Establish term limits for Supreme Court justices
Overturn Citizens United
Establish direct election of the president and vice president

Beshear has described these ideas as a way of addressing what he sees as a government that is no longer functioning properly. His earlier discussions of the proposal also emphasized nonpartisan redistricting and campaign-finance reform.

The proposals would require an actual constitutional amendment where the Constitution currently provides a different structure.

That is a very high bar.

And that is precisely why this debate is important.

Beshear Explicitly Supports Direct Presidential Elections

The most consequential element is the Electoral College.

Beshear’s position is that Americans should directly elect the president and vice president rather than choosing electors through the state-based system currently established by Article II.

The Constitution currently provides that each state appoints electors based on its representation in Congress.

Under the current system, the presidential election is therefore conducted through the states.

Beshear wants to replace that structure with a nationwide direct vote.

And his explanation is rooted partly in his experience as governor of Kentucky.

He argues that Kentucky voters are effectively taken for granted because presidential campaigns can anticipate how the state will vote.

His proposed alternative would require presidential candidates to seek votes throughout the country rather than concentrating their efforts on a limited number of competitive states.

“I Certainly Think It’s Time”

Beshear’s argument is essentially this:

Why should a presidential candidate focus heavily on a handful of swing states when every American’s vote could instead count toward one national total?

That is the fundamental case made by supporters of direct presidential elections.

Under a nationwide popular vote, a candidate would seek votes wherever they could find them.

The current constitutional system is different.

Article II assigns electoral votes to states according to their representation in Congress, meaning each state’s electoral vote total reflects its House and Senate representation.

That state-based structure is not an accidental feature of the modern system.

It is embedded in the Constitution.

Changing it would therefore require a constitutional amendment.

The Electoral College Was Part of the Founders’ Federal Design

The Constitution did not establish a single nationwide presidential election.

It created a system combining national and federal elements.

The Constitution Annotated explains that the Framers’ presidential-selection system reflected both the United States as a nation and as a federation of states. Each state received electoral votes based on its representation in Congress.

That distinction matters.

The United States is not simply a collection of individual voters.

It is also a union of states.

The Electoral College reflects that federal structure.

Beshear’s proposal would move the country toward a more purely national model of presidential elections.

That is a profound constitutional change.

Does Eliminating the Electoral College Mean California and New York Would Control Everything?

Critics of direct election often make precisely that argument.

But the actual consequences are more complicated than simply saying that California and New York would “control” presidential elections.

Under a nationwide popular vote, candidates would have an incentive to seek votes wherever additional votes could improve their national total.

Whether that would increase or decrease attention to smaller states is a matter of political strategy and depends on how campaigns respond to the new incentive structure.

Supporters argue that every vote would have equal weight in the national tally.

Opponents argue that campaigns could instead concentrate on large population centers.

The important point is that there is no way to know with certainty exactly how presidential campaign strategies would evolve under a system that does not currently exist.

What is certain is that the incentive structure would change.

Kentucky Is at the Center of Beshear’s Argument

Beshear specifically invoked Kentucky.

His argument is that presidential candidates already know the state’s political tendencies and therefore have little incentive to invest heavily in Kentucky during general elections.

Under a direct national vote, he believes candidates would have a reason to seek additional Kentucky votes because every vote would contribute directly to the national total.

That is a legitimate political argument for direct election.

But opponents of the proposal see the issue differently.

They argue that the Electoral College forces presidential candidates to build geographically broad coalitions and prevents the presidency from being determined solely by population centers.

The dispute therefore comes down to competing definitions of what presidential representation should mean.

Should the president represent the national popular vote?

Or should the president continue to be selected through a system that balances national population with the states’ role in the federal system?

The Electoral College debate isn’t merely another election-year argument. Changing presidential selection would require altering the Constitution itself. News Watchmen readers can explore educational and preparedness resources through our affiliate partners.

Beshear Wants Term Limits for the Supreme Court, Too

The Electoral College is only one part of Beshear’s proposal.

He also wants constitutional term limits for Supreme Court justices.

That would represent another enormous structural change.

The Constitution currently provides that federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, hold office during “good Behaviour.”

There is no fixed term of years.

Beshear has argued that lifetime service can create incentives for presidents and political organizations to strategically manipulate the timing of Supreme Court appointments. His broader reform proposal specifically calls for term limits for the Court.

Again, this would require a constitutional amendment.

Congress cannot simply pass an ordinary statute and rewrite Article III’s basic judicial-tenure structure.

Congressional Term Limits Are Also on His List

Beshear’s proposal would also impose term limits on members of Congress.

That idea has been debated in American politics for decades.

Supporters say term limits could prevent political careers from becoming effectively permanent.

Opponents argue that voters should decide how long elected officials remain in office.

There is also a constitutional issue.

Congressional qualifications and terms are governed by the Constitution, meaning imposing mandatory federal term limits would require a constitutional change rather than simply a new congressional rule.

Beshear wants to put that change directly into the Constitution.

Then There Is Citizens United

Beshear also wants his amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

The 2010 decision significantly expanded protections for independent political expenditures by corporations and unions under the First Amendment.

Beshear’s proposal would therefore seek to change the constitutional framework governing campaign finance.

He has described the goal as getting “dark money” out of politics and returning elections to a system in which campaigns depend more heavily on individual contributions.

This would represent another major constitutional confrontation.

Partisan Redistricting Is Another Target

Beshear also wants the Constitution to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.

The idea is straightforward:

Voters should choose their representatives rather than representatives choosing their voters.

That phrase has become a common argument among supporters of independent redistricting.

Beshear has repeatedly emphasized nonpartisan redistricting as one of the core elements of his proposed amendment.

The issue has become increasingly important as both parties fight over congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The Voting Rights Act Would Be Part of the Constitution

Beshear also wants portions of the Voting Rights Act incorporated into the Constitution.

That is another significant proposal.

Rather than relying solely on ordinary federal legislation, constitutionalizing provisions would make them considerably more difficult to alter through ordinary congressional action.

Beshear has framed the idea as part of a broader effort to protect voting rights and reshape how elections are administered.

But Here’s the Catch: Constitutional Amendments Are Extremely Difficult

This is where the political rhetoric meets constitutional reality.

A president cannot simply sign an executive order abolishing the Electoral College.

A governor cannot do it.

Congress cannot abolish it with an ordinary statute.

The Constitution’s amendment process would have to be followed.

Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments.

Congress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both the House and Senate agree.

Alternatively, two-thirds of the states can apply for a convention to propose amendments.

But proposal is only the beginning.

An amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through state legislatures or state conventions, depending on the ratification method selected by Congress.

That means a proposal like Beshear’s would require an extraordinary level of national agreement.

Seventy-Five Percent of the States Would Have to Agree

There are currently 50 states.

Three-fourths means 38 states.

That is an enormous hurdle.

A constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College would therefore need support far beyond the Democratic Party’s traditional coalition.

It would require substantial agreement across Republican and Democratic states.

That reality makes the proposal politically difficult regardless of which party controls Washington.

The Electoral College Is Not Merely a Presidential Campaign Rule

This is another important distinction.

The Electoral College is embedded directly in Article II.

The Constitution specifies that each state appoints electors based on its representation in Congress.

The Twelfth Amendment subsequently modified the original system so that electors cast separate votes for president and vice president. It was ratified in 1804 following problems exposed by the election of 1800.

So eliminating the Electoral College would not be a minor technical adjustment.

It would require rewriting a fundamental part of the presidential-election mechanism.

Is Beshear Preparing for 2028?

That is an important political context.

Beshear has increasingly been discussed as a potential national Democratic figure and possible 2028 presidential contender.

The Washington Examiner reported that he has been active in discussions about the Democratic Party’s future and has promoted himself as a Southern Democrat emphasizing what he describes as common sense and common ground.

His constitutional proposal therefore has national implications beyond Kentucky.

A politician positioning himself for a possible presidential campaign naturally has an interest in discussing how presidential elections should work.

But that does not establish that the proposal was created specifically for a 2028 campaign.

It does establish that Beshear is now openly presenting a national governing agenda.

A “Moderate” Democrat With a Very Big Constitutional Agenda

This is where the label “moderate” becomes politically interesting.

Beshear has often presented himself as a Democrat capable of winning in conservative territory.

He governs Kentucky, a state that has voted heavily Republican in recent presidential elections.

But his constitutional proposals are not small adjustments.

They would potentially change:

How presidents are elected.

How congressional districts are drawn.

How Supreme Court justices serve.

How members of Congress serve.

How political spending is regulated.

How voting-rights protections are constitutionally enforced.

That is a sweeping agenda.

Whether someone considers those reforms moderate or radical is a political judgment rather than an objective fact.

What can be said objectively is that the proposed changes would substantially alter the constitutional structure of American government.

Constitutional changes can affect generations of Americans. News Watchmen encourages readers to study proposed reforms carefully, examine the original constitutional text and follow how these ideas develop.

The Founders’ System Was Deliberately Federal

Supporters of the Electoral College point to the Constitution’s federal structure.

The Framers did not create a presidential election based simply on one nationwide popular vote.

They created a system in which states play a formal role.

The Constitution Annotated describes this as a blend of federal and national features.

Beshear’s proposal would shift that balance.

The president would become directly dependent upon the nationwide popular vote rather than electoral votes allocated through the states.

That is not necessarily unconstitutional.

A constitutional amendment can change constitutional structures.

But it is unquestionably a constitutional transformation.

What Would Direct Election Actually Change?

Under the current system, candidates seek a majority of electoral votes.

That means campaigns concentrate heavily on competitive states.

Under direct election, every vote would enter the same nationwide tally.

That could change campaign strategies dramatically.

A candidate might seek additional votes in heavily Democratic states, heavily Republican states, swing states, rural areas, suburbs and cities because all votes would contribute to the national total.

Supporters say that is exactly the point.

They argue that a presidential candidate should have to earn votes from Americans everywhere.

Opponents argue that the Electoral College encourages geographic coalition-building and protects the federal character of the republic.

Both arguments deserve to be understood.

The Real Question Is Bigger Than Beshear

This debate is ultimately not about Andy Beshear.

It is about what Americans believe the presidency represents.

Is the president:

A national leader chosen by the nation’s voters as one electorate?

Or:

The leader of a federal republic whose election should reflect the states as political units as well as population?

The Constitution currently chooses the second model.

Beshear is proposing to move toward the first.

That is the heart of the debate.

News Watchmen Analysis: A Constitutional Battle Is Brewing

Beshear’s proposal should not be dismissed simply because it is politically controversial.

Nor should it be accepted simply because it is packaged as a “Fix the Darn Government” initiative.

The details matter.

Abolishing the Electoral College would alter presidential elections.

Supreme Court term limits would alter the federal judiciary.

Congressional term limits would alter the relationship between voters and elected representatives.

Overturning Citizens United would alter constitutional campaign-finance protections.

Nonpartisan redistricting would alter how political districts are drawn.

Constitutionalizing voting-rights provisions would make those protections substantially more difficult to change.

Taken together, these are not minor reforms.

They represent a comprehensive attempt to change the architecture of American government.

And There Is a Huge Political Hurdle

Even if Beshear persuades Democrats to embrace the proposal, Democrats alone cannot amend the Constitution.

The proposal would need two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress if Congress is the route used to propose it.

Then 38 states would have to ratify it.

That means any successful amendment would have to cross party lines.

Article V was designed to make constitutional changes possible—but difficult.

And that difficulty is intentional.

The Constitution is supposed to be harder to change than an ordinary law.

The 2028 Question

Beshear’s emergence as a possible national Democratic figure makes his proposals worth watching.

If he becomes a serious contender for the 2028 Democratic nomination, these constitutional reforms could become part of a national campaign platform.

That would force voters to confront a question much larger than whether they like Beshear personally.

Do they want to change the constitutional system itself?

And if so:

How much?

A Prophetic Perspective: Human Government Is Never Perfect

There is also a biblical perspective worth remembering.

The Bible does not teach that any earthly political system will permanently solve humanity’s problems.

Proverbs 29:2 says:

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the importance of righteous leadership and just government.

But Scripture also makes clear that human governments are temporary.

Political systems change.

Empires rise and fall.

Leaders come and go.

Constitutions can be amended.

Election systems can be redesigned.

But God’s sovereignty does not depend upon any of them.

For Christians, that means political engagement should be accompanied by discernment.

Constitutional questions matter.

Elections matter.

Leadership matters.

But no earthly political system should become the ultimate source of hope.

The Electoral College Debate Is Not Going Away

The Electoral College has survived for more than two centuries.

There have been repeated efforts to change or eliminate it.

Beshear’s proposal is therefore part of a much longer American debate.

What makes the current moment different is the breadth of the constitutional package he is proposing.

He is not merely saying:

“Let’s change presidential elections.”

He is saying:

“Let’s rethink the way American government works.”

That is a much bigger proposition.

News Watchmen Bottom Line

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has openly advocated a broad “Fix the Darn Government” constitutional amendment that would include direct election of the president and vice president, effectively replacing the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote. His broader proposal also includes congressional and Supreme Court term limits, restrictions on partisan redistricting, campaign-finance changes and constitutional protection for portions of voting-rights law.

The Electoral College is currently embedded in Article II of the Constitution, which assigns each state a number of electors based on its congressional representation.

Changing that system would require a constitutional amendment.

And that means Beshear’s proposal faces an enormous hurdle: under Article V, an amendment generally requires two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to propose it and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Whether Americans ultimately favor or oppose direct presidential elections is a political question for voters.

But the significance of Beshear’s proposal is clear:

He is calling for a fundamental change to the constitutional system by which America chooses its president.

And if Andy Beshear becomes a serious contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, Americans may hear a great deal more about his vision for a radically different election system.

The question is no longer whether he supports eliminating the Electoral College.

He has said he does.

The question is whether the American people—and ultimately 38 states—would ever agree to change the Constitution to make it happen.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Andy Beshear support abolishing the Electoral College?
Yes. Beshear has explicitly said he supports direct election of the president and vice president, which would replace the current Electoral College system. His proposal is part of a broader constitutional-reform agenda.

What else is included in Beshear’s proposed constitutional amendment?
His proposals include nonpartisan redistricting, campaign-finance reform, overturning Citizens United, congressional term limits, Supreme Court term limits and constitutional protections related to voting rights.

Does the Constitution currently require the Electoral College?
Yes. Article II establishes a system in which each state appoints electors based on its representation in Congress.

Could Congress abolish the Electoral College with an ordinary law?
No. Because the Electoral College is established in the Constitution, eliminating it would require a constitutional amendment.

How difficult would it be to amend the Constitution?
Extremely difficult. Article V provides that amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or through a convention called upon applications from two-thirds of the states. Ratification then requires approval by three-fourths of the states.

Why does Beshear say Kentucky would benefit from direct presidential elections?
He argues that Kentucky receives less presidential campaign attention because its electoral outcome is generally predictable. He believes direct national elections would give candidates an incentive to seek votes in Kentucky and elsewhere regardless of state partisan tendencies.

Is Andy Beshear considered a possible 2028 presidential candidate?
He is frequently discussed as a potential Democratic national figure and has been included in reporting about possible 2028 contenders. His national political profile has grown as he promotes a message centered on Southern Democrats and government reform.

Would eliminating the Electoral College automatically make presidential campaigns focus less on large cities?
That cannot be known with certainty. A national popular vote would change campaign incentives, but the precise geographic strategy candidates would adopt would depend on turnout patterns, demographics, fundraising and other factors.

Affiliate Disclosure:
Some links in my articles may bring me a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support of my work here!