Just as how the Constitution, in Article II Section 1, defines the Elector but not the process for selecting Electors (granted to the state), it also grants YOU a Constitutional power in the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments as a member of a jury of peers in criminal and civil trials.
Using your argument, we know that the Constitution gives YOU the power to vote on guilt or innocence in a trial. We also know that the state has powers for defining how jurors are selected. Is it your contention that the state, therefore, has the power to tell you how to vote on the jury? If the overwhelming sentiment of the community is that the defendant is guilty, can the state compel you to vote on the jury as the public sentiment indicates?
In rebuttal, the 6th amendment qualifies the jury as "impartial," the 5th amendment qualifies the jury as "Grand," and the 7th amendment is silent. If you agree that the 6th amendment "impartial" jury prohibits the state from legislating how the jury should vote, do you believe that the absence of a word like "impartial" in Article II Section 1 means that the state can treat Electors as partial and dictate how they must vote?
The Constitution is absent partiality in 5th amendment Grand Juries and 7th amendment civil juries; does this mean that the state can mandate how these juries must vote, but except only 6th amendment criminal juries?
Is the Constitution to be taken THAT literally, the Electors can be mandated to vote partisan, that Grand Juries and civil juries, due to the absence of the word "impartial" can be mandated how to vote, but that only criminal juries are free to vote without state interference?
Or do you believe, as I do, that the right to vote is inalienable, is the property of the citizen in any civil capacity, and is beyond the reach of the 10th amendment and the state to control?
-PJ
The Founders understood that the right to a trial by jury meant that the jury could not be dictated to by the court.
Originally a Grand Jury was an entirely different body and event than it is today. It was meant to protect all individuals from illegal behavior by the court and the prosecutors. Today, it is pretty much the opposite.
So, your analogies do not apply properly to the subject at hand. There is no logical comparison to jurors and individual citizens voting for President. Again, voters are voting for Electors who claim to represent a particular nominee.
BTW, the 7th amendment makes two matters that we are discussing clear: One, that when a jury is impaneled, it is the jury that is trying the case. Therefore, the court is not coercing the jury decision. And two, that any re-examination of the facts the jury rules on must be examined according to common law. Common law does not allow the jury to be dictated to by the court.
So, your premise is defective.