So this compact among states to circumvent the Constitution is in and of itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Yeah. Too bad that we don't have executives, legislators, or judges who pay any attention to such matters now.
NOT necessarily ...
SCOTUS has ruled that a state's decision on how to allocate electors is plenary and that there is no inherent constitutional right for an individual citizen to select [vote for] an elector. This decision trumps the Compact Clause of the Constitution.
OTOH, SCOTUS HAS ALSO RULED that once a state grants it's citizens the right to vote for electors - then:
"... the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter."
Furthermore, SCOTUS has ruled that:
"The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another."
These 2 views are diametrically opposed to each other. The state's right to determine how the electors are selected AND the individual voter's right to equal protection of his vote under the 14th Amendment.
So, SCOTUS would have to decide whether this proposed "compact" is constitutional ...
This is the thought that occurred to me. Can states individually abrogate Constitutional requirements to have electors? Correspondingly , can electors as Constitutionally designated for States give one States voters to to another or more? Sounds like something one would expect out of Russia in 1917 or Germany in 1932 maybe it is.