"....An elector may vote for whomever he or she wishes for each office provided that at least one of their votes (president or vice president) is for a person who is not a resident of the same state as themselves.[68] But "faithless electors" are those who either cast electoral votes for someone other than the candidate of the party that they pledged to vote for or who abstain. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have passed laws to punish faithless electors, although none have ever been enforced. Many constitutional scholars claim that state restrictions would be struck down if challenged based on Article II and the Twelfth Amendment.[69] In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)....."
"....Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.
The original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:[27]
Choice of the president should reflect the “sense of the people” at a particular time, not the dictates of a cabal in a “pre-established body” such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of “foreign powers”.[28]
The choice would be made decisively with a “full and fair expression of the public will” but also maintaining “as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder”.[29]
Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.[30]
Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.[28]
Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.
The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the presidential election to the House of Representatives.
According to the text of Article II, however, each state government was free to have its own plan for selecting its electors, and the Constitution does not explicitly require states to popularly elect their electors. Several methods for selecting electors are described below....."
".....When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[31] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate". Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay:
The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[35]
The Founding Fathers assumed that electors would be elected by the citizens of their district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.
"......Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the original intent that they advocated a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[35] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[36]..."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_CollegeIf for any reason, it were to pass into Law, it would be immediately challenged and struck down. It would violate the intent of the Constitution itself, and would not allow for the REQUIRED deliberation, designed to allow men of intellect to weight the pros and cons of the choices. An Elector, CAN, vote in almost any manner he so chooses, and it was designed that way.
A rubber stamp allotment of elector votes, would be, in itself, faithless.
I think we are ahead of the curve.
