Tis is not a change. The electors have always been free to vote their conscience. They are not bound by the vote of their state. Nevertheless electors have never faltered in following the mandate of the voters they represent.
Exactly. Henry Clay once cast a contrary vote because he wanted to keep George Washington the only President to get 100% of the electors. I seem to remember it being for William Henry Harrison, but, could be wrong.
I seem to recall a “movement” in 2016 to get the electors to vote for anyone but Trump. Though this may have been in some of the primaries.
Well, except for just that one time or two. And it was never enough to affect the outcome of an election.
But things change.
The Constitution does not specify exactly how Electors must be selected. They could in fact be appointed by the State Governors or Legislatures without any reference to a popular vote. Whether people would tolerate such practice is a political question, not a legal question.
Likewise, the Constitution does not impose any restrictions on the electors as to whom they may vote for. A number of States require their Electors to vote for the candidates to whom they are pledged, but this has no support from any Federal Statute or Constitutional clauses.
There won't be any help from the Courts in this matter.
The Net Popular Vote Compact between a number of Democrat-controlled States in effect nullifies the votes of the minor States in favor of those cast by California, Illinois, and New York. This does look to be specifically un-Constitutional. But it does not seem to make any difference.
I do not see a legitimate Government arising from any process that is decided by five Democrat city-states (LA, NY, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC)
It is rare for an elector to be faithless, but it has happened.
If an elector can ignore the wishes of the voters he represents, then I suppose a judge’s stupid rulings can be ignored as well.