For example, should a candidate go obviously insane, or perform an obvious felony -- murder, rape, grand theft, etc -- after election day but prior to the Electoral College voting it makes perfect sense that the Electors could either withhold their votes or vote another candidate, even when bound by oath. In those case, I hold, the oath is nullified by well-known circumstance.
The similarity between a jury and the electoral college is well-known to students of history. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America:
It was thought that if the legislature was empowered to elect the head of the executive power its members would for some time before the election be exposed to the manoeuvres of corruption and the tricks of intrigue whereas the special electors would like a jury remain mixed up with the crowd till the day of action when they would appear for a moment only to give their votesDemocracy in America By Alexis de Tocqueville, Henry Reeve, Francis Bowen, Daniel Coit Gilman
The are nothing of the sort. The Constitution gives them one responsibility and one responsibility only, to cast the votes for president. It places one restriction on them, they cannot vote for a president and vice president who come from the same state as themselves. And that's it. They aren't a judge. They aren't a jury. The Constitution places those responsibilities in the hands of others.