Electoral College members are there to do a job and not steal elections
Actually as I remember my CIVICS (from back when they taught it in the 1950s) the electoral college is the last line of defense. They are not bound by anything but their own conscious.
(Of course I am old and I may be wrong but the Courts just confirms what I understood to be the situation)
“They are not bound by anything but their own conscious.”
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called “faithless Electors” may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.
Therefore, if the electors are given to state laws concerning their vote, and not by the federal law that created the electoral college and abides by it to over rule popular vote, then we have a conflict of interest for the actions taken voting either way. I see it as unconstitutional and not within states rights to over-rule a federal election using independent voters by state decisions.
rwood