Rethinking the Electoral College Debate: The Framers, Federalism, and One Person, One Vote, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2526 (2001).

This article examines the debate surrounding the Electoral College, especially in light of the 2000 U.S. presidential election where the popular vote winner did not secure an electoral majority. It focuses on the federalism-based justifications for the Electoral College and argues that the system's bias toward large or small states is empirically unpredictable, making it difficult to defend on federalism grounds. The article explores the historical context, the Framers' intent, and evaluates how unforeseen political developments, including the rise of a two-party system and winner-take-all voting, have complicated the system’s original purposes. Without a clear federalism justification, the Electoral College becomes harder to defend against the principle of one person, one vote.

David Gringer, Why the National Popular Vote Plan Is the Wrong Way to Abolish the Electoral College, 108 Colum. L. Rev. 182 (2008).

This article critiques the National Popular Vote (NPV) Plan, arguing that while it is an innovative attempt to bypass the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it is flawed in its approach to reforming the Electoral College. The author raises concerns about the plan’s potential violation of sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which could lead to minority vote dilution or retrogression. Furthermore, the plan could be manipulated for partisan advantage at the state level. The article concludes that a constitutional amendment is the only legitimate way to abolish the Electoral College.