this is one of the flaws in our Constitution. In a lot of cases, it is simply too vague.
In this example, it provides NO requirement for Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. What does that mean for elections? It could mean chaotic elections.
Let’s say all Electors are “free” to vote for who they want. What if the people vote overwhelmingly for one candidate nationwide, but many Electors don’t like this candidate and vote for someone else? We would then have a dictatorship of 538 people! It would effectively cut the President off from the people by allowing him to only pander to those 538 people to win!
Is that what the people would want? I doubt it. They want to believe their votes count in some way. How long would a “free” Electoral College stand before people want more decisive decisions?
I can’t imagine the Founders intended for the Electoral College to attain dictatorial power over the President.
You sound like you don’t understand how Electors are chosen.
Each party has a slate of Electors in each state. They select the slate based upon party loyalty.
If their slate wins, they get to represent their state in the Electoral College. Sure Don Trump Jr could be free to vote for Hillary...but it’s not going to actually happen.
In general, the handful of “defectors” have only been to make a statement when the election is not in doubt. They don’t switch to the opposing major candidate, but they do things like reversing the votes for President and Vice President (for the already losing candidate).
They are free to vote for who they want, and have been since the adoption of the Constitution. In the days of the Founders, electors were most commonly chosen by state legislatures, not the voters, though a couple states used popular vote from the beginning. This is really a state issue, if a state requires a vote for the candidate winning the popular vote, either of their state or Congressional district as Maine and Nebraska do with 2 elected statewide, that should be respected. This is a minor issue and no threat to the electoral system.
And most will secretly be fans of Oprah, the View and Ellen, and form their opinions by watching Don Lemon, Jake Tapper and Morning Joe. Sophisticated./s
The original intent was for there to be no popular vote for POTUS. There is still no requirement for a popular vote to be held at all. The original intent was for electors to be nominated by states to represent the STATE, not the population at large. Many states did not hold popular elections at all for the first several elections, and in the case of Sputh Carolina no popular vote was held until after Reconstruction.
The Constitution is not vague at all on this issue; it’s quite clear. Electors for a given state are chosen by the state in any manner determined by that state’s legislature. A popular vote just happens to be that manner in all states. There is no provision allowing anyone the legal right to coerce the votes of the electors. If anything, states might be able to impose penalties after the fact, but the faithless elector’s vote would stand.