I believe the issue here (and in the lawsuits) is NOT the claim that the Electoral College is unconstitutional (it obviously is not) but rather that the 'winner-take-all' amendments to STATE constitutions violate the US Constitution. The US Constitution clearly states that EVERY REPRESENTATIVE appointed to the Electoral College gets a vote. That is not the case any longer (and hasn't been for some time). Most states have adopted amendments to their individual constitutions requiring EVERY ELECTOR to vote by way of the popular vote in that state. In Florida, for example, DJT won 49% of the vote to 41% for Clinton. Because of the 'winner-take-all' electoral system, DJT was given all 27 votes where, based on the original intent of the Constitution, he should have only been awarded 14 (rounding up). This argument that high-population states skew the results is just not true. States like Montana get one vote. If the majority of the populace votes for DJT, he gets that elector. Conversely, all 55 electoral votes from California were awarded to Clinton, based on her win of the popular vote and that state's 'winner-take-all' system. If California followed the US Constitution and awarded it's electoral votes based on the popular vote, Clinton should only have been awarded 34 of the 55 votes, with DJT getting the remaining 21. Our one voice, one vote system has been overridden by rules imposed by states. The original premise behind the Electoral College still stands today. Maybe we should repeal these winner-take-all rules that actually hinder all candidates and restore the system devised by the Founding Fathers.