Absolutely.
And also, the Supreme court will rule that State supreme courts can manage elections (in some other state), as long as THAT state supreme court rules in favor of Trump.
Yes, they will be able to reconcile this. Heads Trump wins, Tails Trump wins will be their motto.
Scenario 2A doesn’t even require such extensive action – all it would take is voting rights legislation that neutralizes the main GOP vote-suppression shenanigans (i.e. Congress using its power under the Elections Clause to set minimum required levels of early voting access, mail-in voting access, availability of sufficient voting stations, and the like) and the GOP is toast given demographic trends. (Neutralizing the legislative filibuster would be a necessary prerequisite for obvious reasons.)
The only ways to do that are to amend the Constitution (in which case you might as well just replace the EC with a normal vote tally) or expand the House (giving each populous state a large extra batch of electors and diluting the weight of the ones that have 1 EV each for people, cows, and tumbleweeds).
I see no issue with any of those options as a matter of principle, the only issues are those of political will and practicality.
The benefit would be a more transparent process and a far more robust and believable election process.
One part that would need to be included would be a mechanism to handle future changes in population such that it would not require consitutional change, and I would expect that would need to include an electoral commission to oversee and verify the conduct of elections and the levels of representation.
I really cannot see any justification for having any area whose vote is out of proportion to its population - are we not all created equal and does this not also include the right to decide who governs us?
Looks like this scenario is the most likely outcome. Just as when I first posted, I won’t pretend to know how this scenario will turn out.
What is he? The Highlander???
If only. Type on my part 