That's wrong. The one-vote-per-state provision only applies if the House is selecting a President, and that only happens if no person wins a majority of the electors who voted.
No matter how fucked up things get in California and New York, there will be electors chosen in November in many states by decisive margins and without controversy, and those electors will vote for a President and Vice President on the date set by law (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December; 3 U.S.C. § 7).
One vote per state is only if the House is picking the president.
That only happens if one person doesn't get a majority of the votes in the electoral college. Contested states won't cause that to happen because the majority is of the electors voting, not of the electors possible.
That's wrong. The one-vote-per-state provision only applies if the House is selecting a President, and that only happens if no person wins a majority of the electors who voted.
No matter how fucked up things get in California and New York, there will be electors chosen in November in many states by decisive margins and without controversy, and those electors will vote for a President and Vice President on the date set by law (the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December; 3 U.S.C. § 7).
Exactly, if enough states are contested then one candidate may not reach threshold for majority thus activating one vote per state provision
No. Totally wrong.
One vote per state is only if the House is picking the president.
That only happens if one person doesn't get a majority of the votes in the electoral college. Contested states won't cause that to happen because the majority is of the electors voting, not of the electors possible.