[ReignOfError]

I still don't see how a state assembly can make an end run around the electoral college system mandated by Article II of the US Constitution without the Constitution being amended.

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.

[epow]

I didn't take time to read the article last night, so I didn't know what the proposed changes entailed. After having read it I agree, there is nothing in Article II that prevents a state from choosing it's electors in that manner.

However, IMHO if that scheme is implemented it will be a disaster for the voters of every smaller and more conservative state that may sign on to it. They would in effect be compelling their state's popularly chosen electors to carry out the will of the larger states' voters, which in most cases would be the opposite of the small state's. Why would any state assembly do something that irresponsible if it accurately represents the political makeup of the state as it is presumed to do?