[DoughtyOne]

The framers may have allowed this, but it's my take that they'd ahve sooner committed harry carry than subvert the will of the electorate. Electoral votes are bound in principle by the free votes of the people.

If we're talking treason or some other issue that could surface after an election, then of course, the electoral vote should reflect that IMO. Otherwise Robb should bind that electoral vote as a solemn duty commensurate with the honor given him to cast the electoral vote.

This isn't about him and he should have understood that before agreeing to take the position.

[Conservative til I die]

The framers may have allowed this, but it's my take that they'd ahve sooner committed harry carry than subvert the will of the electorate. Electoral votes are bound in principle by the free votes of the people.

But then again, why even allow for such a situation if the intent is to follow the will of the electorate to the most absolute degree?

I'm guessing extreme situations. Can't think of one that might reasonably happen, but say somehow an Adolf Hitler type got the nomination of one party (Dem of course) and somehow managed to win the vote. Reasonable electors might then be able to stop his election from happening.