I understand all of your comments and in great part agree with them. There is , IMO, a basic question with respect to your comment excerpted above. Would a "Faithful" or an "Unfaithful" Electoral College be more likely to prevent the situation you describe? For me, this is a serious consideration. History is full of examples of factions taking advantage of perfectly reasonable freedoms to create chaos.
I begin with the expectation that "faithful" is only relevant to the method of choosing Electors in the first place. It is possible for states to choose methods of selecting Electors where there is no prior obligation or expectation how they will vote, which makes the question of "faithless Electors" moot.
I admit that we are currently not using one of those methods. I question whether it is wise for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on something that is potentially transient, unlike ruling on something that is permanently fixed in the Constitution, like the meaning of "natural born citizen," or limits on free speech, or how wide is the right to keep and bear arms.
To your point, I would ask if which of a faithful or faithless Electoral College is expected to be the norm? In our history, the faithless Elector has been rogue, one or two in a controversial election, none in most. I think that the current hysteria over faithless Electors is more of a psyops than an expectation, a media putsch to plant the thought that a faithless Elector is a hero and not an aberration. It is a call for members of the Electoral College to de facto impeach and convict the President as a last hope.
It is hard for me to say whether faithful or faithless or neither Electors would damage the standing of states. I still believe that the state mandating how a citizen casts his vote is the greater danger.
-PJ