I know exactly what it was focused on, but it is quite ironic that the sneaky scheme being discussed here should bring to mind the guy who used the term risky scheme and whose fate in 2000 is the driving force for this sneaky scheme.
It's a sneaky scheme to skirt the constitution, all wrapped up in flowery, self-serving platitudes. No doubt about it. The Libs have been stewing over this since 2000.
1. Why is representation in the House of Representatives based on population, and representation in the Senate based upon two senators per state, regardless of population?
2. Why does the constitution specify a number of electors to the Electoral College equal to their total of representatives plus their two senators?
Why does the constitution contain those two provisions. Don't tell us that it does contain them. Tell us why they are there?
I think that's where the answer to the constitutionality of the scheme being discussed here lies. Such closely related parts of the constitution are probably there for the same underlying reason: the founders intended for representation in Congress, and in the Electoral College, to be based partly on population, and partly on the individual states. Schemes that attempt to change that without an amendment are unconstitutional, and awarding EC electors in a state based upon who won a national popular vote definitely changes the weighted population/individual state component of the representation in the EC.
But who knows how a given group of judges might rule.