[Jim Noble]

I have no doubt that laws binding electors, once they have been appointed, are unconstitutional.

[VanShuyten]

“I have no doubt that laws binding electors, once they have been appointed, are unconstitutional.”

Perhaps, but the Democratic Party in Colorado is responsible for keeping their Electors in line.

From the National Association of Secretaries of State in their section covering Colorado Electors:

“If any vacancy occurs in the office of a presidential elector because of death, refusal to act, absence, or other cause, the presidential electors present shall immediately proceed to fill the vacancy in the electoral college. When all vacancies have been filled, the presidential electors shall proceed to perform the duties required of them by the constitution and laws of the United States.”

http://www.nass.org/component/docman/?task=doc_download&gid=1864&Itemid=391

It seems pretty clear to me that it’s up to the Dims to fix this. Or not.

[MrEdd]

The power to select the candidates rests with the state legislatures. The electors themselves are glorified messengers.

Somehow I am not buying your assertion that it is somehow unconstitutional to require any messenger anywhere (electors absolutely included) to deliver a message exactly as they received it.

[FredZarguna]

I'm not so sure that you're right about that. If a state has plenary power to appoint electors, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the state legislature can't bind them to the legislature's decision as well.

Hamilton's argument is in the Federalist, that makes it obiter dicta from an important source, but it's nothing more than dicta nevertheless.