I'm not mixing anything. You're refusing to look at the intent of the founders, and why we have some representation based on population, and some based upon individual states, in both Congress and the Electoral College. And that is precisely what the schemers are trying to get around.
But, since you've laid down the law in your above statement, if a state chooses to allocate all it's electoral votes to the candidate receiving the smallest number of votes, then that is still constitutional. No problem with that, according to you.
Or maybe some states would like to allocate their electoral votes to some individual who didn't even run in the presidential primaries. Still fits your guideline as being constitutional.
Let me take these one at a time.
I'm not mixing anything.
The Constitution does not give the states any authority to "allocate" Senators. The number of Senators is fixed at two. So you are mixing scenarios by comparing the Constitutionaly-granted states' right to choose the method of selecting electors with the Constitutionally fixed allotment of Senators that the states cannot alter. Suggesting that states might choose to allocate Senators is a false discussion.
You're refusing to look at the intent of the founders...
The founders' intent is clear, as they wrote it into the Constitution. Each state can choose for itself the method of selecting electors. We focused on the winner-take-all vs. proportional allocation, but that is just a way to divide the votes. The states are also choosing between the popular vote process and the caucus process to determine electors, so there are at least three different ways that are currently in practice.
The founders meant for the states, as sovereign governments, to choose for themselves how to select their electors.
...why we have some representation based on population, and some based upon individual states, in both Congress and the Electoral College.
I'm well aware of this, and am a die-hard supporter of the Electoral College. I'm simply saying that the states have the right to choose for themselves how to select their electors, which is what you initially challenged.
You support your challenge with absurd choices that I believe no rational state would choose to do. I showed at least three different methods in place today that states use to select their Electors.
I don't understand what we're arguing about.
-PJ