Not true. It says they meet to "vote by ballot." "Vote" implies choice. "Choice" implies freedom to choose.
The question devolves to why having Electors at all if the states could simply have written their desire directly to Congress?
What's the point of mandating that 55 people in California meet to vote on something that the state could simply order up by fiat? I argue that the state cannot order by fiat how anybody can vote, including Electors.
If they can, it's not a vote.
-PJ
Again, I don’t dispute the morality of your position.
Read the first few pages of the first link here (i’m having trouble ‘cutting and pasting- need a new mouse I guess)):
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1097&bih=475&ei=94VgXft1qIqCB_KUvogJ&q=%22the+very+faithless+elector%22+wvu&oq=%22the+very+faithless+elector%22+wvu&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..46...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.V2alJ5DYwes&ved=0ahUKEwi7zZGhoZrkAhUoheAKHXKKD5EQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566606846996
Would you say Electors’ ‘conscience’ is not bound to the Constitution?
Morality and Law do not always coincide.