Again, I don’t dispute the morality of your position.
Read the first few pages of the first link here (i’m having trouble ‘cutting and pasting- need a new mouse I guess)):
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1097&bih=475&ei=94VgXft1qIqCB_KUvogJ&q=%22the+very+faithless+elector%22+wvu&oq=%22the+very+faithless+elector%22+wvu&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..46...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.V2alJ5DYwes&ved=0ahUKEwi7zZGhoZrkAhUoheAKHXKKD5EQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566606846996
Would you say Electors’ ‘conscience’ is not bound to the Constitution?
Morality and Law do not always coincide.
That said...
I briefly scanned the article, but claim no comprehension of it. TL;DR for now, maybe later. I don't think it affects my position for several reasons:
First, you still haven't addressed anything about what it means to "vote." Is a vote a thing of conscience or is it a rote mindless action, to do as one is told? Is the latter what the Framers meant when they said that Electors vote by ballot?
Second, Electors voting is in the Constitution, it is not a moral argument. Constitutionally, it is supreme Law of the land, and an Elector's vote cannot be legislated if we agree that the first item (to vote) is an individual choice. Do you agree with this?
Third, and I think most important, "Faithless Electors" are only faithless so long as states choose methods where it can happen. Currently, the slate of candidates represented by the Presidential candidate's name is the method used, but what if a state chooses in the future to change the method?
What if a state changes its method to something like Electors being nominated and voted on by the state's legislature? The majority party would likely get the Electors they want; what would a faithless Elector be in this case? If we defined "faithless Elector" to be someone who goes against the popular vote, would we now have a new kind of faithless Elector who goes against the majority party of the Legislature?
Or, what if a state changes its method so that Electors run as candidates for the Electoral College? Let's take the extreme case for this thought exercise and say that California changes to this method. The Presidential candidates names are removed from the ballot and the true Electors are listed instead. California gets 55 Electors, so we can assume that hundreds of people might run to be an Elector.
Here, it would be up to each candidate for Elector to campaign, perhaps to pledge to vote for a candidate, or to instead give a resume of qualifications for why (s)he is qualified to be an Elector. The voter would then choose 55 out of the list, and the top 55 statewide vote-getters become Electors to the Electoral College.
What would a faithless Elector look like in this case? Would it be someone who pledged to vote for one candidate, but voted for another? What about the Elector who didn't pledge, but instead appealed to their qualifications as a judicious person? Can this person even be faithless?
So, the concept of a faithless Elector is not a uniform thing that can be adjudicated because it is situational. If a court were to rule the other way (that states can bind Electors), then does that also bind states from never using their Constitutional power to choose the method of selecting electors again? What about a future case where some states bind Electors and others do not? Is that a 14th amendment equal protection issue? Must all Electors be bound by state instructions or none of them?
All these questions go away if we agree that a vote is a fundamental right of each citizen in any capacity via the 10th amendment, that is their own personal right of consent of the governed that cannot be mandated by law, whether they are Congressmen, state legislators, Electors, or ordinary citizens in the voting booth.
-PJ
I wanted to add a postscript to say that the idea of Electors campaigning is not so far fetched.
In California, during the 2003 recall election of Governor Gray Davis, there was a two-part ballot: part one was yes/no to recall Davis, and part two was whom to vote for as his replacement. There were no primaries, only announced candidates.
There were 135 candidates on the recall ballot, so having a ballot with many candidates for the Electoral College is not impossible.
I will add this, though, for humor's sake: while Arnold Schwarzenegger won the recall with 48.58% of the ballot, a man named George B. Schwartzman came in 9th place, possibly because his name appeared right above Schwarzenegger's on the ballot.
-PJ