I mean, a state that is forseeing a election which an opponent party will likely win, could just pass a law before the election that says “The state legislature shall have the sole authority of appointing electors to the electoral college for elections of president and vice president” and if they have an already gerrymandered state legislature, they could cling to power with like 40%, or maybe even less, of the votes and have a trifecta in the state, electoral votes are practically permanently voting for the party. They could even change how governors are selected by making them to also be appointed by legislature, further solidifying their power.
Why haven’t some states just gone full authoritarian? I mean, the federal government couldn’t do anything about such states if this were to happen, due to federalism.
You’re describing the plan in place. Nothing is stopping it - it just isn’t finished yet.
Edit: Not really suprised, but why haven’t they do that earlier?
Open revolt is harder to control than a populous that’s been groomed first.
Because there are more popular voters than people who would be involved in such an action. They need to reach peak apathy first and redirect any potential anger elsewhere.
Using the nuclear option is likely to end the political careers of everyone involved, so it is designed to be used when that’s better than the alternative.
You need expendable people in the right positions.