I wrote:

I'm sure there are rule changes needed in the US election system, but that should be done between elections, not during them.

Hmm. Maybe it is OK to do it during an election after all. It is just a matter of which branch should be used to resolve the issue. If you do it in between elections, it will be the legislative branch, drafting some laws regarding voting procedures. If you do it during an election it will be the judicial branch that resolves the issue. If they do it by setting a precedent, they are almost drafting laws too.

I also said:

they (Democrats) do not have much of a case

Well, that's actually up to the courts to decide, come to think of it.

Using the judicial branch is more conflict-oriented, but may not necessarily be a bad thing, although if all court conflicts are bipartisan there is the risk of precedents being based on a hidden assumption of a bipartisan political system, which could well change.

In Sweden it would be resolved either by the large civil service independently, or by a chummy deal. Conflicts are not tolerated to any large extent in the culture, so anyone who rocks the boat is out. We don't even have a true supreme court, which I think is a great shame. Nowadays, after the EU membership there is however the EC court for us, which make the situation better.

/jeorgen