11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Montrovant]

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

 

[BlindBoo]

Without the Electoral College we have MOB RULE.

For the election of a National Executive? Really?

States have the right to choose their elector in any manner they choose. They can also change their minds
(elect new reps to change the law) and enact a different way as well.

The American people are a mob?

The American people, the judicial system, and our government allowed slavery to exist for hundreds of years. Would you want the people of NY, and L.A. dictating to you for something like that to be legal again?

They were elitist who opposed direct democracy. They had no choice but to compromise on the slavery issue because there would have been no union without it. To make slavery legal again you would need a constitutional amendment.

 

[martybegan]

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

 

[Montrovant]

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

 

[ChrisL]

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

 

[martybegan]

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

 

[Montrovant]

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

That would suck...but be perfectly Constitutional. That's just the way the system is set up. I imagine the idea is that, should a state legislature make such a choice, they would then be voted out of office and someone new elected, who would then change things to something the voters prefer.

 

[mudwhistle]

Whatever happens, I'm confident that we can depend on both parties to spend far more time and energy maneuvering for political advantage and trashing each other than in working together like normal adults to move this country forward in a positive way.

Gosh. Gives me a warm feeling in my tummy.
.

Yeah....who needs workable solutions and other stuff like that.
Party first at all costs.

Weird. The left bitches about Obstruction by the GOP when a Democrat is in the WH, yet that's all they're doing right now. They have no solutions. Only complaints.

 

[Pogo]

Article II, Section l of the U.S. Constitution proves you're right.

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

I'd be curious to see how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue.

Article 4 Section 4 guarantees each state a Republican form of government. That is in no way harmed by having EC electors not voted on; the government is still representational and has a chief of state which is not a king. Add in the explicit choice given to state legislatures in how electors are chosen, and I don't know if there's any ground to prevent a state from doing just about whatever they want to choose electors, so long as the legislature makes the decision in accordance with that state's laws.

With the 14th amendment, while people (men, specifically, but I would think women also are included now) are guaranteed the right to vote at any election of presidential or vice presidential electors, I think that if the legislature gets rid of elections, that becomes moot.

I can't see any state legislature doing away with some form of voting being the way electors are chosen, but they do seem to have that right per the Constitution.

If you had the legislators directly selecting electors, you might be able to get away with it, but by signing legislation like this you are taking your own votes and diluting them with votes outside the state, thus basically making any of your votes moot.

Someone else deciding the outcome of your own election is decidedly un-republican.

again, switch "the popular vote winner" with "the candidate from party X" and you see how pretty daft the whole concept is.

And again at the risk of noting the same thing over and over to deaf ears, diluting votes with other contrary votes is ALREADY THE WAY IT'S DONE every time your state or mine or anybody else's goes to Congress and tells the lie that literally everybody in that state voted for the Red or Blue candidate, because that kind of unanimous vote has never happened anywhere ever. So the un-republicanism is not only already here, it has a way long and shoddy history.

There's no reason for any voter in any locked-red or locked-blue state to go vote at all. They can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for some third party or stay home and play sudoku and all four produce exactly the same result. So it's a bit late to be suddenly stat noticing what's been there the whole time. Or else a bit selective.

 

[g5000]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

There is nothing unconstitutional in this pact. In fact, they are exercising their states rights.

 

[ChrisL]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

 

[Montrovant]

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

EDIT: What I should have said is that the representation from the House is proportional, only the 2 electors from the Senate are equal between the states.

 

[Pogo]

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

that's why we have the Senate....no matter what, the 10 largest populated states only have 20 senators, the 40 smaller have 80....

The Senate protects the less populated states and gives them their power....

And having the Presidency decided the way we do it now gives another layer of protection.

I'm an Engineer, and we are fans of redundancy.

What Care describes there isn't "redundancy". It's "inflation".

 

[Pogo]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

And Rump didn't do well in California, New York (his own state) or your region.

--- What's your point?

 

[BlindBoo]

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

Electing a President (or selecting the electors to vote in the EC) doesn't alter the States form of government does it?

 

[ChrisL]

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

 

[ChrisL]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

And Rump didn't do well in California, New York (his own state) or your region.

--- What's your point?

My point is, California and New York don't "call" the elections as far as the winner or loser and screw all the other states. Lol. That is not how America works.

 

[Montrovant]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

 

[BlindBoo]

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

Sounds like you're describing the Senate. This an election for one position.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?