But there is, of course, another school of thought which goes to the denial of the citizens' vote if the Elector who is pledged candidate A is forced by the state to vote for candidate B. One man, one vote and all that.
Here is the excerpt from Wikipedia which I found:
"A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person pledged or does not vote for any person. 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many only punish a faithless elector after-the-fact, states like Michigan also specify that the faithless elector's vote be voided.[51] As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.
Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[52] That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes."
It depends on whether a left-wing court controls or conservatives control the court. If the former, the court will hold that the inherent power of the state to appoint electors under this federal system implies the right to control their vote as well and that liberal majority on the court will use Ray vs. Blair as precedent.
