[Arthur McGowan]

Do these new state laws contain provisions to eliminate or punish electors who don’t go along with the Democrat scheme?

I can’t imagine loyal Republican electors voting for the Democrat just because the state legislature has expressed a wish that they do so.

Or have the legislatures put in place a whole new system where the Democrat conspiracy chooses all the electors AFTER the November election?

[nathanbedford]

This is only relevant, or to put it a different way, it will only change the results if a majority of the people vote for one candidate but the other candidate and wins in the electoral college in the absence of the statute requiring state electors to vote for the majority (or plurality?) vote getting candidate.

Suppose a Republican wins the majority vote but a Democrat would nevertheless prevail in the electoral college under the old regime. I have no doubt that some Democrat electors in those states with such a law would disobey the law and vote according to their pledge, which is for the Democrat. If the governor of that state is a Democrat, it is unlikely that his Attorney General will prosecute or otherwise try to enforce the law compelling the vote to go to the Republican. If a Republican governor and a Republican Attorney General, would he attempt to bring sanctions, including perhaps criminal sanctions, against recalcitrant Democrat electors who refused to obey the state law and vote for the minority Republican?

The opportunities for corruption are obvious. It is also conceivable that the state legislature could make a declaration concerning the vote which might or might not be respected.

At the end of the day if a court decides this issue, which is not entirely clear, it would be the height of irresponsibility because it wrecks the federal system compromise on behalf of small states to permit such a law to stand although the pressure to do so because of the superficial appeal of one man one vote will be hard to resist.