The article linked below through the tweet makes a surprisingly sound argument that the electoral college violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and is unconstitutional.
If someone could find a way to establish standing and file a suit in court, it could get heard.
In very short, crude terms, this is what the argument boils down to:
- Winner take all EV allocation is not stated in the Constitution. States decide how to allocate.
- Any action by states that affects voter’s rights must comply with the Constitution. It’s the state’s burden to demonstrate that it is in compliance. It cannot be assumed.
- The EV allocation method of winner take all, discriminates against voters for the ‘losing’ or non-plurality candidate in a State, because voters on the ‘losing’ side get no representation in the EC. Voters on the ‘winning’ side get overrepresented in the EC. HRC got about 45% of the votes in GA. She should get 45% of the EC, but the winner take all allocation method gives it all to DT (argument works both ways, obviously, but you get the picture).
- The result of the winner take all allocation unfairly infringes on a person’s right to vote for President and to have that vote counted in the final tally. Therefore, it violates the equal protection clause which states that “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws.”
- The only way to do it fairly is to have direct representation of every vote through proportional allocation of the EC, or abolish the EC and replace it with a straight popular vote.
Whether that’s a winning argument or not, I don’t know. But ‘ya gotta admit, if a judge did accept the argument, he/she wouldn’t exactly be laughed out of court.