Then what's the point of having it? If HRC had won, would it still be OK for the electors to switch their votes?
Of course.
We would have been depressed about it but we would have accepted the result and moved on.
Not with the anti-Trump crowd.
Faithless Electors are themselves incompetent and need to resign after their 15 minutes of fame are up, but before the vote. Impeached they should be.
There really isn't any point to having human electors.
However, there is a point to having the vote spread out geographically, rather than being simply a national popular vote. Urban cesspools should not decide the election by mere (fraudulent) excess votes! Candidates should be forced to campaign in the hinterlands, not just the corrupt big cities!
The electoral vote should be tallied by congressional district. One electoral vote per district carried plus two extra for carrying the majority of a state's CDs, or, in the event of a tie in the state's CDs, the state's popular vote. The results should be automatic. No need for human electors to be bribed or threatened or simply go faithless.
Such a scheme would firewall vote-fraud schemes to the CDs in which they are perpetrated. However efficient, the maximum damage any vote-fraud situation could do would thus be limited to the CDs in which it takes place. By itself, it could not swing a state, much less the nation.
Of course, the above isn't going to happen without a constitutional amendment.
They want Electors to switch because they want permanent, straight up OLIGARCHY.
Call them on it.