There is no President elect, until the Electors vote.
If we just wanted our President to win via the popular vote, then there would be no need for Electors, we'd just take the popular vote in each State to choose our President. Or rather the popular vote for the entire Nation...
the constitution specifically states that Electors are to have an INDEPENDENT vote.
States forcing Electors to swear to vote the way the State wants them to vote, ALL electors FOR the winner of the popular vote, is defeating the ENTIRE purpose of having independent Electors....isn't it?
But then why vote at all? Just have a fiefdom or use the Democratic process in the primaries, select 500 important "superdelegates" around the country and let them choose the president every four years.
Electors are given to the States in 2 ways...
one, the States are given 1 elector for every US Congressmen that they have...so 1 elector for every congressional voting district each state has...these electors represents the State's population...broken down by congressional district.
So this is why a state as populated as Texas might have 20 electors for 20 congressional districts and a State like mine in Maine which is a very low populated State, has only 2 electors representing our population in the 2 congressional districts that we have in my State.
But on top of these electors given for each congressman that the state has, each State is also given 2 extra electors, representing the 2 Senators each State has in the US Senate.
This is what gives the small States some weighting. Since Texas gets 2 and a State like Maine gets 2.... it DOUBLES the electors that Maine would get if only the population was considered. WOW, that really helps us up here in this State! But in Texas, where they have 20 districts/electors with 700,000 people in each, (for every 700,000 people in a State, they get 1 US Congressman), they too ONLY GET those 2 extra senatorial electors....and for Texas, that only gives them a 10% increase above the electors given for the state's populous.
So Maine got 100% more electors by those 2, and Texas only got 10% more electors.....
THIS IS WHAT the Founders did to GIVE Smaller populated States like mine, MORE of a say, MORE representation than simply through the population.
THIS IS WHAT the founders did to protect us from simply large population states forcing their candidates down our throats.
BUT the founders did NOT create it where the smaller states of the many, would always be the winner of the electoral vote either....they gave the less populated States a CHANCE at getting as president who they want....
Let's say we had two candidates that tied in the popular vote, and each candidate was given proportionately the electors they won...
We have 538 electors in total, take out the 100 extra electors from giving each state 2 electors for their 2 senators, so 438 electors that represent the population,
the only 2 candidates in the race are tied, so one candidate has 219 electors won, and the other candidate has 219 electors won.
but 1 Candidate won 31 states (less populated) in order to get to his 219 electors
And the other candidate only won 19 States in order to get to her 219 electors
Out of the remaining 100 electors that Represent the Senators, and the Senators represent the State itself, as per our constitution, those electors vote with who won the popular vote in their own State.
This means, that the one candidate who won 31 states, gets 62 of those extra electors, and the other candidate who only won 19 states, gets only 38 extra electors for her win states....
The MAN candidate WINS, the LADY is a LOSER in my scenario...
THIS ABOVE is the advantage that the founders put in to the electoral process that would diminish the the power so to say of the heavily populated states and give the advantage to our Fly over country, our less populated states.
==========================
Look at how Maine does their vote....(Nebraska also) We have 2 voting districts in my State thus 2 electors for the populous, one district voted for Trump, and the other congressional voting district voted for Clinton.
We issue 1 Elector for Clinton, and 1 elector won by Trump and in the overall popular vote, Clinton won so Clinton got the 2 extra senatorial given electors representing the State
WE DO NOT have a WINNER TAKES ALL on electors, each elector is representing their voting district.
(THIS IS HOW ALL STATES should do it and they should change it back to the way our founders intended it to be, the electors are like congressmen, they vote representing their district for the best person to be President for the Nation)
Trump came to my district in itty bitty populated Maine, 3 times!!!! HOLY SMOKES!!! All because he had a chance of winning this one district in Maine for our 1 single elector that could have made the difference for him....He would have never come here to rally, IF OUR STATE had it set up as a 'winner take all' electors.
when States make it a "winner take all" they eliminate the will of so many citizens in a National vote for President.... and limit all the contestants that visit them....
Trump came here for 1 electoral vote
In a winner takes all....as example.... all of those 35% Trump votes of California, the total electors are going to Hillary, even though she did NOT win them in this national vote for President.
MY STATE, DOES IT THE RIGHT WAY!!!
