Electors are just that exactly - electors.
They are not machines or robots.
The people select representatives to choose their President.
Laws limiting the electors options/vote are not Constitutional.
So be careful who you ‘elect’ as ‘electors’
I have never seen an elector’s name on a ballot, and never saw a campaign ad with an elector in it instead of a presidential candidate.
The thing is - you traditionally didn’t “elect” electors - they were chosen by the party boss of the political party that won the presidency.
It’s still done that way in most states but some have made them selected by a state appointed committee or picked by the governor of the state, etc; constitutionally the state gets to decide how.
“The people select representatives to choose their President.
Laws limiting the electors options/vote are not Constitutional”
It is Constitutional if the state legislatures mandate they vote the will of the people and by centuries of precedent and common sense. Otherwise, we have a few people choosing the president based on whim, bribery, or threats. You mean you think the writers of the Constitution would think that is a great idea?Electors are chosen by the voters under the name of the candidate preferred and have publicly declared their loyalty to that candidate. That is the origin of the term “faithless electors.”
I might disagree with you. They are robots. It is their duty to represent the popular vote of their state, not their personal opinion of what the popular vote should be. Free Rein is the perfect environment for graft and corruption (and personal racism - towards orange men). Like a defense attorney in court that suddenly starts acting like a prosecutor towards his client - or a boxer that throws the match - or a senator that promotes the interests of a state that may greatly harm his own - it’s just not acceptable. America was the first nation in the world to set up a system for direct election of their leaders. It’s a system that has proved successful against outside influences for over 400 years. But it’s only successful because of accountability to the people. All people. Take that away, disenfranchise poor and middle America to the advantage of urban America, and you have no nation.
DC and 26 (?) states have electors take oaths to uphold the winning majority of their own state. I guess the rest of them feel their electors are responsible enough not to have to swear to an oath.
According to the gvt link on the EC: “There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot.”
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/
Please identify the constitutional clause that limits the states’ ability to restrict the choices of their electors.