Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the CongressThe most that can be expected of the states, IMHO, is that the ones - such as Arizona and now Louisiana - which are abused by Obama should consider "directing" that the electors from their states be committed to not voting for Obama in 2012. That would eliminate any thought of a need to campaign in those states - such that the Republican candidate could concentrate all her (a little Palin plug there) resources on the purple states.
That “directing” language has to do with how the electors are appointed, not how they’d vote. Of the electors chosen, those who get to cast their votes are those committed to whichever candidate received the most popular votes in the state for the slate of electors.
If you read your 2008 ballot, you voted for an elector for McCain/Obama/Whomever. None of us actually votes for the individual running for POTUS.
Typically, the electors are the elected Members of Congress, with party officials and activists of the prevailing party voting in lieu of the Congressmen/Senator(s) from the losing party.
For instance, VA has 2 Dem Senators and 11 Representatives, of whom 6 are D, 5 are R. Let’s say that balance remained in ‘12 (not likely). Each party in the state would designate 13 electors, including the elected officials, before the election. They are basically a slate.
If in ‘12 the Republican wins VA .. the 5 GOP Representatives would be voting electors. The VA GOP, as directed by the legislature, would have designated the 8 remaining electors. All of them would have been committed to the GOP presidential/VP candidates, and would cast their votes accordingly in the electoral college.
Conversely, if the Dems carried VA in ‘12, the Dem party of VA would have designated its slate of electors, with 5 non-elected among them.