It is interesting that you regard a statute that has survived close examination by legal experts for many decades as blatantly unconstitutional, but then your attitude is likely shaped by the views of the day.
Some here may challenge your view of how "multiple slates of electors" can be different than slates of electors created illegally in defiance of state constitutions or statutes, but I am not.
1. How close an examination has been done on the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 when it hasn’t been applied in decades?
2. The “legal experts” you cite aren’t real experts. They’re political charlatans who change their legal expertise depending on which side they’re on. That’s how you end up with some dope like Mark Levin arguing that the VP and Congress had no authority to override a state’s electoral votes in 2016 when Joe Biden was the VP, but they did have the authority to do it in 2020 when Mike Pence was the VP. That’s not legal expertise. Those are the idiotic rantings of a political hack.
… can be different than slates of electors created illegally in defiance of state constitutions or statutes, but I am not.
1. The legislatures of those states should have dealt with those issues before January 6th. They didn’t. Case closed. Read the clear language of the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to see how that works.
2. By your standard, the electoral votes of TEXAS should not have been counted in 2020 … because the governor of Texas permitted the use of ballot drop boxes — in clear violation of Texas law. And yet Texas had the audacity to file a lawsuit in Federal law and claim that other states didn’t meet their statutory requirements for a legitimate election. This is the kind of crap you get when you have lawyers involved in election stupidity.