The constitution says states appoint electors “as they see fit” (probably a paraphase). This doesn’t preclude adding rules for the appointment, and under the concept of the constitution as explicitly reinforced by the tenth amendment, where the constitution is silent, the states (or the people) have a free hand.
IMO, naturally.
“...the states (or the people) have a free hand....”
Which is my point. If the state is allowed to determine the voting directions of the electoral people, then it becomes a controlled political process rather than the true vote of the people. And the officials of the state become the only voting process while thus overstepping and alleviating the vote of the people. And with today’s party politics rather than a voting democracy, it becomes a weapon to use against the opposite party in control of a state. And I don’t think you believe these questionable people that run states have not already used this tool.
So the founders intention to counter balance the popular vote has been turned into the weapon needed to overturn elections. We have had a number of elections over the past 50 years that the popular vote winning people were holding their breath for the end of the electoral college vote because of it’s inconsistency.
Personally, I have no idea why this idea continues in practice if not for that reason. And with today’s communication capacity and accountability, whether it’s used or not, why it remains as we no longer need it. It’s like saying we need hitching posts left in front of store fronts.
It just needs the same rules consistent with all states. As long as we play by the same rules, the game is consistent. (They should get rid of it, we’ve evolved past it)
rwood