“I don’t see a great risk of a court ruling affirming the right of an Elector voting his will.”
I strongly disagree. The probability of faithless electors is huge. Consider an election with a 270 - 268 outcome. Clearly the person with 270 votes was elected as the winner based on electoral votes. There are 2 risks that are more prevalent today. One is the money involved in campaigns and the other is information available to the public about electors that could put them in danger.
Consider the money aspect, with over $1 billion spent on campaigns (not to mention the possible corruption of deep state internal and foreign influence and the value of power), why not give 2 electors $25 million each to switch their votes. (Done in a way that could be hidden. Also the party in power would decline to investigate too strongly.) I believe some faithless electors got a $1,000 fine.
In addition to the money or separately, consider the fact of threats to electors and their families.
I contend that with power the risk is too great.
Faithless electors is my number one peeve of our system. I was thrilled to see that the Supreme Court is looking into this. I strongly support the electoral college. I am fine with the Nebraska and Maine rules as well as winner takes all. The point is that the electoral votes reflect the will of the people. (This assumes an honest count - which is my second peeve. We have to make significant improvements/reforms to get and insure an honest count.) It is absurd to have a small group of people with undeserved enhanced power to substitute their will and negate the vote.
I would hope the ruling from the supreme court mandates the electors votes as per the results of the actual and validated votes. (There is a formal process for validating votes in the states - needs much improvement.) This eliminates the risk as I outlined from faithless electors.
Note that I did not give a 269-269 example as only 1 vote change would affect the outcome. There are multiple reasons for this but the one I want to stress as that it does not necessarily turn a loser into a winner. (I realize it is possible to know which way a tie is going to be resolved depending upon the House election but it could be more complicated in that there could be some tainted house results that could come into play.)
Electors MANDATED to vote a certain way?
Your statement-- and the fact that your opinion is widely shared, even on FR-- indicates that our Republic is ending. Oh well, America will be burning by 2025 anyway. People will get a clue.
Concur...I do not take it lightly that an "elector" has the right to vote their conscience. But, for me, this right is tempered by my belief in their responsibility to their state. They may, of course, determine that it is in the best interest of their state to disregard the wishes of the party that empowered them. However, a well-intentioned disregard for the will of the majority is tricky business in the absence of extreme circumstances- eg. a Hitler. While possibly necessary in extreme circumstances, I contend that the previous example was not the reason the Founders instituted the Electoral College. An individual's right to vote his/her conscience is without question something not to be trifled with in these situations. But I believe the Founders were entirely concerned with protecting the rights of the "small" states.
It is not always possible to avoid political chaos, but a "faithful" Electoral College is probably the best approach.