The Constitution is not 'flawed' with regard to election integrity. Original jurisdiction and the Constitutional requirement for state legislatures to control the state's election NOT the state's courts were there. The failure IMO was not having an explicit requirement for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to insure national election integrity.
The Texas lawsuit would have been a powder keg for sure and so the SCOTUS sidestepped it. But the result is we have a tainted election process that a large percentage of Americans no longer trust. That is VERY bad place to be.
So in short, not flawed but insufficient.
That's funny Mike. You can't handle the words 'fatally flawed' so you needed to find a synonym, and make a fool ass of yourself denying the obvious.
So let's just call it insufficient for your sake. You don't seem to understand what 'fatally flawed' means.
I understand what fatally flawed means and I stand by what I wrote. The Founders put the provisions for dealing with election malfeasance in place. The SCOTUS could have taken the case based on those provisions. If it were fatally flawed, there would have been NO Constitutional basis for state to state challenge of election malfeasance and that is not the case.
Sure Mike, if insufficient is easier to swallow for you.
Your Scotus didn't take the case because there was no remedy and so most likely arranged for two dissenting opinions on the issue of 'standing'. They couldn't very well ignore the fact that there must be 'standing' for any other state to object to election malfeasance that had an negative influence on them. And that's not saying that there was malfeasance, only that there is a need to decide at some future time.
It's not a difficult concept for anybody to understand but the fact that there was no remedy has demanded that it be swept under the carpet for a while.
Because of the insufficency, you can be assured that it will be revisited, but in an atmosphere of cooperation.