A Foolish Pitch: All or Nothing
Compact for America has learned that certain advocates of the Convention of the States approach to Article V are insisting that all of your eggs should be in one Article V basket. They are claiming the push from the States to reform the federal government should be "All or Nothing." They are saying that it will take decades to organize another Article V convention after the first one is convened.
Compact for America says there could not be a more foolish pitch.
If the solution is really going to be as big as the problem, the best solution is "All of the Above."
The truth is that each major Article V approach has a different risk/reward profile. An objective analysis of those respective profiles is here.
You would never follow the "All or Nothing/Eggs in One Basket/Never Get Another Chance" pitch when investing in your retirement. There is even less reason to be stampeded exclusively into only one Article V approach when it comes to saving the Nation's future.
Modern technology and the "Article V 2.0" streamlined approach of the Compact for America initiative guarantee that the first convention to succeed will create a beach-head for many more successful conventions that are premised on policy reforms that command supermajority support.
For this reason there is and ought to be more than one major Article V effort if the goal is to generate a ratified amendment that helps restore our Republic.
In fact, even if you want to try to fix everything all at once at the first Article V convention, the natural hedge for any big Convention of the States play is the Compact for America initiative; and more specifically, the Compact for a Balanced Budget.
Why?
To the extent that COS underweights the risk of "runaway convention" policy maker/grassroots blow-back, the CFA approach best minimizes that risk among Article V efforts.
To the extent that COS' broad agenda underweights the preference of policy maker/grassroots for specific policy proposals that can be verified and vetted in advance of the convention, the CFA pre-drafted amendment approach provides a hedge for that.
To the extent that COS' tactics overweight the significance of grassroots engagement relative to policy maker/grass-tops/analyst engagement, the CFA's greater focus on a policy maker/grass-tops/analysts provides a hedge for that.
To the extent that COS' strategy overweights the value of a political or litigation threat/benefit to make Congress move on an Article V application after 34 states concur in it, the CFA's greater tactical flexibility in the timing of an approach to Congress provides a hedge for that.
To the extent that COS' strategy underweights the difficulty of securing 100+ legislative enactments over 6 stages, the CFA's consolidated and streamlined approach allowing for a ratified amendment in just 39 legislative acts over 3 stages provides a hedge for that.
Of course, the converse hedging observations could be made vis a vis CFA and COS, which is why CFA rejects the idea that a rational Article V portfolio requires everyone to be all-in on the same effort.
If you hear a pitch that there is only one way to an Article V convention, don't buy it.
There is not time for foolish investments like that.
If we're serious about actually proving the Article V concept and securing constitutional reform, the best prioritization is to go after the low-hanging fruit, like a Balanced Budget Amendment, first.
That's why we say put most of your effort and support in the Compact for America initiative-not everything.
