I disagree.
The power to choose the method of selecting Electors does not extend to include how those Electors, once selected, choose to vote.
Currently, each state party assembles a slate of Electors, made up of state party members vetted by the state campaign team and approved by the national campaign. These slates are partisan and predisposed to vote for their party's candidate. Those people, as your representatives, have the same freedom as Congressmen to make their own decisions once there.
Constitutionally, I wonder if the Framers expected the states to treat the election of Electors as something like a caucus where the states would select the most trustworthy non-government people, as opposed to how it is today with competing slates of partisans.
With the former, the process would likely be contemplative, where the top business leaders, academics, and property owners would be elected as Electors, and they would gather and choose the persons most appealing to the state based on their diverse perspectives.
With the latter, each party in the state assembles a slate of partisans who are active in the party at the local precinct level. The majority popular vote in the state determines which slate of partisans is chosen as Electors. They would gather and vote by rote according to the party line.
Both methods pass Constitutional muster, but I suspect that the Framers expected the former process, not the latter one.
Furthermore, an Elector's purpose is to vote, that is, vote for the President. We don't vote directly for the President, we vote for Electors, and the Electors vote for the President. The whole concept of consent of the governed means that the vote is sacrosanct. We the People, as the lowest denominator in the federal triangle, retain the most basic power of a representative republic, which is the personal vote.
It is the individual's unique franchise in a representative republic no matter under what circumstances or in what capacity that citizen's vote is being called for. It is an inalienable right of liberty that an individual's vote is his own property.
To say that a state can mandate how an individual is to vote is to undermine the whole meaning of the United States of America. I would argue that the 10th amendment prevents the federal government AND the states from forcing an individual person to vote a desired way. The right to vote is a right retained by the people. The Electors retain their 10th amendment right to vote their conscience as their expression of consent of the governed.
For me, it comes down to the principle that a person's vote is his own franchise, and no law can compel him to give up his vote to the state. The Constitution says that Electors meet to vote, not meet to pass along the state's mandate.
All that said, in a system where competing slates are being voted on, and where those slates are made up of actively engaged local state party members, and where those slates are vetted by the parties and approved by the national campaigns, the likelihood of a faithless elector voting against the candidate of their party is small. I don't see a great risk of a court ruling affirming the right of an Elector voting his will, when most times the Elector's will will align with the desires of the party that won the statewide election.
-P
“I don’t see a great risk of a court ruling affirming the right of an Elector voting his will.”
I strongly disagree. The probability of faithless electors is huge. Consider an election with a 270 - 268 outcome. Clearly the person with 270 votes was elected as the winner based on electoral votes. There are 2 risks that are more prevalent today. One is the money involved in campaigns and the other is information available to the public about electors that could put them in danger.
Consider the money aspect, with over $1 billion spent on campaigns (not to mention the possible corruption of deep state internal and foreign influence and the value of power), why not give 2 electors $25 million each to switch their votes. (Done in a way that could be hidden. Also the party in power would decline to investigate too strongly.) I believe some faithless electors got a $1,000 fine.
In addition to the money or separately, consider the fact of threats to electors and their families.
I contend that with power the risk is too great.
Faithless electors is my number one peeve of our system. I was thrilled to see that the Supreme Court is looking into this. I strongly support the electoral college. I am fine with the Nebraska and Maine rules as well as winner takes all. The point is that the electoral votes reflect the will of the people. (This assumes an honest count - which is my second peeve. We have to make significant improvements/reforms to get and insure an honest count.) It is absurd to have a small group of people with undeserved enhanced power to substitute their will and negate the vote.
I would hope the ruling from the supreme court mandates the electors votes as per the results of the actual and validated votes. (There is a formal process for validating votes in the states - needs much improvement.) This eliminates the risk as I outlined from faithless electors.
Note that I did not give a 269-269 example as only 1 vote change would affect the outcome. There are multiple reasons for this but the one I want to stress as that it does not necessarily turn a loser into a winner. (I realize it is possible to know which way a tie is going to be resolved depending upon the House election but it could be more complicated in that there could be some tainted house results that could come into play.)
Both of you make good arguments.
Political Junkie, when it comes to the right to vote one’s conscience, the one major difference between an Elector and any other office holder (Representative, Senator) is that the office holders are elected by a vote of the people to whom they are supposedly accountable. A vote of conscience by the office holder is subject to affirmation of the voters at the next election.
The Elector is “(s)elected” by the party executive committee or similar group, which is not elected by all its party members across the state. It all starts at the precinct level and only with those who get out of their lounge chairs and show some interest in party politics. Only some of those at the precinct make it to the state executive committee. The only “real accountability” for the elector then is to the active party members who picked him, i.e. the party’s state level executive committee. Double cross them and your chances of being an elector or active executive committee member is over...but the damage is done. Therefore, the Elector’s right to a “vote his conscience” is not the same in the Constitutional sense as an elected official because of how he got his position and is not accountable to be elected by the whole party.
In addition, people who belong to the other party who cross over in their vote or are independents who support the party’s candidate ... what rights do these voters have to know that “their Elector” will vote as they did should their vote end up in the majority? An elector’s “vote of conscience” would nullify the exercise of their vote, and the elector is never to be held accountable for such an act. The voters have no redress. This may be where the answer to this whole thing is - the right of the individual voters to know their vote will be counted via the Elector should their candidate win supersedes the right of the Elector to vote his conscience.
The practical side of this - party people are party people and are expected and will drive over a cliff for the party. Having had over 10 years experience at the state level, I will admit there are a few really loose screws in the party, but the nuts are known and would not be put in such a position at all costs. The risk here is more with the demokraps because they really are a party of nuts, a very fractured party of separate tribes that their leaders are trying to keep together. I can see they are more at risk here should the court hold that the elector may vote his conscience. Despite such a ruling, the party will still do its best to choose its electors who will drive over the cliff for the party.