Good article. The point is that the electoral college doesnt dilute our voting power, it sharpens it. We have more change of influencing the election as part of the state voting majority, which in turn can make or break a Presidential candidate, then as part of the blob of 100 million voters.
The liberals know this. They know the urban, not-too-informed Democrat sheeple will punch the ticket automatically. They want to disenfranchise the smaller states in 'flyover country'...
James Madison, chief architect of our nations electoral college, wanted to protect each citizen against the most insidious tyranny that arises in democracies: the massed power of fellow citizens banded together in a dominant bloc. As Madison explained in The Federalist Papers (Number X), a well-constructed Union must, above all else, break and control the violence of faction, especially the superior force of an . . . overbearing majority. In any democracy, a majoritys power threatens minorities. It threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives.
Madison was right to be concerned. That's exactly what the liberals are trying to do.
The four liberal justices will work backwards from what they think is good for the country which, although they will never admit it, means what's good for liberalism and the Democrat Party. The only way to overcome their backwards syllogism is to try to infuse race into the issue and claim that the decisions respecting voting and civil rights apply here and that to deny the application of those cases here is to deny those cases. These are the kinds of arguments that these liberal judges might find persuasive because you are actually arguing for democracy and turning the tables on the rats.
The other five justices (including Kennedy) need the kind of arguments I have been making and Kennedy needs both kinds.