This is a great piece. The legal logic is straight forward — no leaps of interpretation of the SCOTUS case law. The only high hurdle is the inertia people give the current winner-take-all system. Every civil rights advancement has looked like a pipe dream till accomplished. Most recently, the multitude of naysayers said marriage equality needed time, and shouldn’t be pushed in the courts. Low and behold, some courageous lawyers fought and won!
The most true implementation of “one person one vote” is to require the electors vote for he winner of the popular vote, as Lessig advocates. If the court isn’t willing to go this far, then they need to recognize the disenfranchisement that results from the House choosing the President. The optimal solution in such case is for every state to allocate whole elector votes between the top two candidates in the state, proportional to those candidates vote totals. That would give Clinton 270 votes and Trump 268.