You know what's interesting about these lawsuits? If for some reason the courts end up ruling that each state can do what it wants in order to decide how to send electors, there's nothing stopping a state from literally doing away with the charade and just have the legislature send whoever they want to elect whoever they want, irrespective of any "election"
That's true when the national election itself is understood to be fair, and it sounds like it wouldn't actually stop it, it would just cause a likelihood of being voted out later, it would still be legal no? It seems like "fair elections" are merely agreed upon with a gentleman's agreement, something that breaks down when one side feels like they have the moral duty to bypass it.
You know what's interesting about these lawsuits? If for some reason the courts end up ruling that each state can do what it wants in order to decide how to send electors, there's nothing stopping a state from literally doing away with the charade and just have the legislature send whoever they want to elect whoever they want, irrespective of any "election"
That's not exactly true. The state reps would likely be voted out if they vote against having federal elections without good reason.
That's true when the national election itself is understood to be fair, and it sounds like it wouldn't actually stop it, it would just cause a likelihood of being voted out later, it would still be legal no? It seems like "fair elections" are merely agreed upon with a gentleman's agreement, something that breaks down when one side feels like they have the moral duty to bypass it.