Why do you keep repeating this? Read the link you posted which tells you “Many constitutional scholars agree that Electors remain FREE AGENTS despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional.” and “Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public’s desire.”
These statements should be sufficient proof that your argument rests on nothing consitutional.
Must electors vote for the candidate who won their State's popular vote?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.
The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Do you honestly believe that a Dem operative will vote against their party and Obama? At the least, they are bound by pledges and would be drummed out of the party.
Led efforts to achieve the first state win for the National Popular Vote plan in our home state of Maryland
That there causes heartburn!