Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al

[SpankMe]

18. If what you're saying is true, then Dems are condemned to lose POTUS forever.

This is because if the states get to apportion their electoral votes under their own preferred system, then what's to prevent a red state (red governor/legislature/judiciary supermajorities) from doing he following:

1. Use red majority to pass state constitutional amendment requiring a 75% vote of the legislature and 75% of the public vote to pass all future constitutional amendments.

2. Use that currently existing red supermajority to pass a constitutional amendment saying that only a 1/3 vote of the population (rather than a simple majority - i.e., 50% + 1) is sufficient to apportion all of the state's electoral votes.

Under the above scheme, even if one, two or all three branches of that state's government turned blue some day, there would never be enough blue votes in that state to exceed the 2/3's vote required to take the states' electoral votes, and there'd never be enough of a blue supermajority to roll back the constitution to reflect a simple majority requirement.

Before you say anything about how farfetched that is, just think of the conniving that Republicans have done so far. It is totally within their MO to re-engineer basic electoral processes and legal institutions to guarantee red victories under almost any circumstances. I believe Trump's team will be doing this at the federal level to assure unshakable Republican control of all aspects of government, even if a future president and house should become Democratic.