I don't agree.
The actual wording of the 10th amendment says that powers not granted to the federal government are retained by the states or the people. It doesn't specify whether states or the people come first in retaining rights, or whether states can take away rights retained by the people.
If a State gives Electors the power to vote for someone other than the nominee they were representing in the election...
The state doesn't give the power to vote for anyone to Electors, the Constitution does via Article II Section 1 and the 12th Amendment. The state only has the power to choose the method for selecting Electors. If the state tries to burden the method with bindings on the Electors' votes, wouldn't that be going beyond the establishment of a process limited to selecting Electors?
As I posted elsewhere, doesn't the principle of consent of the governed mean that a person's vote is his most basic right as a citizen, as that is his form of consent as yea or nay? If a state forces a citizen as an Elector to vote its way, isn't that a disenfranchisement of the citizen's vote as an Elector?
Doesn't the citizen, via the 10th amendment, retain the right to his own vote over the state's interest in the same?
-PJ
The Constitution doesn’t make any mention of either requiring or forbidding the Electors from voting for any particular person. Therefore, the power to require a certain vote is neither given to the federal government nor forbidden to the States.
Therefore, the 10th amendment says the State’s or the people retain that right. It would be silly if the people had that power so the States retain it.
BTW, the Electors still have the right to vote. As citizens they have the same right as any other citizen to cast their individual votes for whoever they want to vote for at their polling place.