A means by which Republicans (or less likely, Democrats) can unilaterally rewrite the Constitution

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Today this is most likely to work for Republicans, simply because they hold a bunch of small states:

1. Republicans gain control of both Houses and the Presidency.
2. 25 Republican controlled states vote to split three ways.
3. Congress approves of all splits.
4. 75 states (technically only 67 needed) vote to hold an Article V Constitutional Convention.
5. 75 states can amend any portion of the Constitution they see fit (except suffrage in the Senate).
6. The 75 states vote to be reunited into the 25 original entities.
7. Congress approves the re-establishment of those 25 states.

The only thing an Article V convention is barred from doing is changing the equal representation of states in the Senate, correct?

[Donerail]

You are correct that this loophole exists, but it is equally easy (perhaps more so) for Democrats to take advantage of it. The District of Columbia votes uniformly Democratic, which allows you to skip the step involving coordinated legislation in dozens of state legislatures. This Harvard Law Review note from 2020 lays out the process:

1. Democrats gain control of both Houses and the Presidency
2. Democrats vote to divide the District of Columbia into 127 separate states
3. Congress votes to admit these new states into the Union
[remaining steps are identical]

[Vosem]

You are correct that this loophole exists, but it is equally easy (perhaps more so) for Democrats to take advantage of it. The District of Columbia votes uniformly Democratic, which allows you to skip the step involving coordinated legislation in dozens of state legislatures. This Harvard Law Review note from 2020 lays out the process:

1. Democrats gain control of both Houses and the Presidency
2. Democrats vote to divide the District of Columbia into 127 separate states
3. Congress votes to admit these new states into the Union
[remaining steps are identical]

Winning a trifecta in the first place is probably easier for Republicans, who win national elections slightly more often than Democrats do (and also have a large Senate advantage). Point taken, though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Theoretically all one needs to do is control Congress and a single state, the above DC example could just be used with Massachusetts for example. The above Republican method would be pretty tricky because dividing 25 Republican controlled into 3 states that would all still vote Republican is much easier said than done...it'd work with like Wyoming but not Ohio for instance.

[ꙮ]

Theoretically all one needs to do is control Congress and a single state, the above DC example could just be used with Massachusetts for example. The above Republican method would be pretty tricky because dividing 25 Republican controlled into 3 states that would all still vote Republican is much easier said than done...it'd work with like Wyoming but not Ohio for instance.

If you're setting aside all notions of reasonability whatsoever for a power-grab like this in the first place, there's no problem splitting any Republican State into 3 Republican states. Ohio for instance: Just split off Mercer and Adams counties, call them West Ohio and South Ohio, and you're done.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Yeah all that is legal on paper at least.

I've long felt there should be an amendment to fix this possibility.

Just have 2/3rds of states have to approve the creation of any new states.

[Del Tachi]

Theoretically all one needs to do is control Congress and a single state, the above DC example could just be used with Massachusetts for example. The above Republican method would be pretty tricky because dividing 25 Republican controlled into 3 states that would all still vote Republican is much easier said than done...it'd work with like Wyoming but not Ohio for instance.

Dividing up existing states requires the approval of their State Legislatures, thus adding a step.  Congress can divide and admit D.C. as multiple states unilaterally since it is not formed from any existing states. 

[Ferguson97]

Technically yes, but if either party tried to do this, I think it would just cause a Civil War.

[Senator-elect Spark]

Wow interesting

[MarkD]

I am going to spend as much time and energy worrying about the possibility that this will happen as I worry about the possibility that the next time I walk outside, I will get hit in the head by a meteorite.