I took a look at section 2.1.3 of the original constitution. "Respective states" is clearly there. I'm not sure where I got the idea of a convention of some kind. Maybe some unimplemented idea in a federalist paper I had read a long time ago. I stand corrected. No one else has challenged me on this "fact."

It would be interesting to know how the results were conveyed in those days. The telegraph was not invented until 1844.

The states do have the power to set their own election rules, including how to appoint electors. Maine and Nebraska have chosen different ways than the other 48 states. I will say that ways of the 2 states are more democratic than the other 48.

The other states are reluctant to change because they want to give all their EC votes to their preference. For example, California could elect 55 D electors or it could elect 35 D's and 20 R's. The D's will not give their advantage of 20 extra electors than they deserve.

Averaged over 50 states, the EC results reflect the popular vote reasonably well. So I do not consider the EC an overtly undemocratic institution.

In my little research today, I found that Congress needs a quorum of 2/3 to effect any business. So the January 6 meeting to accept the electors could have "not happened" by the Republicans not showing up for that meeting, justified by the aftermath of the protest.

So who would be the President? Mr. Biden won the election, but without that little meeting, which has been a formality for 200 years, legally he was not.

A definite constitutional crisis was in the works, which could have brought on a lot of civil unrest by both sides.

Anyways, the whole system is broken. There maybe other technicalities to exploit. The system is not going to reform itself. Time to build a new democracy.