We are discussing faithless Electors, those who vote against the pledge to the voters. You call it "those who claim to represent a particular nominee." I say that is a temporal thing, as Electors didn't always structure themselves this way, and there is no requirement that they must do so forevermore. In the original case where Electors were the "nobility" of their states, they were chosen to deliberate on the best candidates; they weren't pledged to any one of them, so they couldn't be faithless. They may be that way today with competing partisan slates, but the remedy is not to usurp their vote by the state.
Regarding juries, the parallel is there; it's called "jury nullification." Call it a "faithless juror," one where the jury acquits an obviously guilty defendant (OJ Simpson?) or where a holdout forces a mistrial. The opposite case, the directed verdict, is one where a defendant is deemed innocent by overwhelming evidence.
One might say that the National Popular Vote movement is a directed election, one where the state deems the winner based on overwhelming national sentiment. The NPV disenfranchises Electors entirely if the state votes opposite to the national popular vote, but is directed to go along. Should an Elector in such a state become faithless and vote the wishes of the state, as you say, or should that Elector follow the state's mandate and vote against the voters of their state?
-PJ
Guys, I think you should have the satisfaction of knowing that I have not found contemporaneous evidence that the Founders intended the states to have the power to negate the votes of Electors.
Meaning I have to assume they don’t. And agree with you, though I disagree with many of your assumptions.
I still think a State has power to impose a ‘sentence’ by law upon a fraudulent Elector, but that is another story.
Politics influenced the Constitution at least as much as principle. That’s why I recommend “The Business of May next” by William Miller so heartily.