Not picking on @jonathanchait here, b/c I see this repeated all over, but it makes no sense to argue that state legislatures' power to bypass voters & appoint presidential electors is a "massive loophole": That's literally the Electoral College's design! https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trump-refuses-commit-peaceful-transfer-of-power-get-rid-of-ballots.html

The Constitution says how many electors each state gets, and then it says the choosing and awarding of those electors is entirely up to the state legislatures. The Constitution plays no role in that part.

State legislatures regularly used to award electors on their own, with no public input. They could do it again tomorrow.

As a voter, you have no constitutional right to play any role in the choosing of the president. Whatever right you have is by the grace of your state.

And states can award those electors however they choose: by congressional district (like NE and ME); by winner-take-all (the other 48 and DC); or by any other method they like.

When people defend the Electoral College, I like to ask, what do you think you're defending? Usually, they think they're defending what's in the Constitution, but they're not.

They're defending extra-constitutional laws passed by states, like winner-take-all. The framers had no idea that would be a method when they created the Constitution. When they saw it take hold, they freaked out.

James Madison wanted an amendment abolishing winner take all from the Constitution! He saw in 1823 how damaging it was. 200 years later, we're having the same old fight.

Anyway, I get frustrated when we refer to the system *as it's designed* as a "massive loophole."