It's very late here and I haven't taken time to read through all of the thread. If some poster can or has already explained why I'm wrong I will check through the thread tomorrow and read it.
It's not an end-run around the process described in the Constitution -- just around how it has conventionally been applied.
Even the most liberal, revisionist USSC Justice on the bench couldn't say that Article II is ambiguous or vague in it's instructions on how a president is to be elected.
The Constitution is clear about how electors are allocated to the states. It is, I believe intentionally, silent as to how each state divvies up the votes allocated to it. It doesn't take a liberal, revisionist or even activist judge to see the distinction.