In fact, I think there are 21 States that have laws that require electors to vote based upon the winner of the general election.Well I'm asking because it seems to Me that far to many people (electors mainly) are making some kind of nonsensical argument that Trump is unqualified. If they plan on altering a legal election on this basis, I want to know what they base their somewhat dubious claim upon.He said he already knew about the three, soo no need to reiterateIncorrect, there are three.There really is,,none.....
There is no Constitutional requirement that electors vote for any candidate. Electors could decide not to vote for Trump because they don't like the color of his hair- AND it would be constitutional.
That being said- I don't think that electors should do that. Our system is predicated on the electoral system working. The electoral voters should not change their votes just because they think Trump would be a horrible President.
However, I'm not talking about their faithlessness when casting a vote. I am taking about them, and others who support the notion, to justify their stance that Trump is unqualified.
There are 30 actually, and two of them do not use a winner-take-all system, but out of those 30 the vast majority don't prescribe any penalty, and none have ever enforced such a law anyway.
As for why Rump is unqualified, clearly there's a large menu to choose from, such as never having held a job in his life, being a self-absorbed Narcissist, and having directly threatened the Constitution itself multiple times in multiple ways, but per the Founders' intents in constructing the electoral college, two of the biggest factors as articulated by the Founders are (1) the people being swept on a wave of emotion by a con artist, and (2) a popular electee who has ties to a foreign government. Either or any of those would suffice but that is by no means an exhaustive list.