Yes, you cited the constitution but you are adding words to it that are not there. What you cited actually supports my argument, not yours. Further, I cited actual events where electors did chose differently than the vote went. Actual electors that did so without repercussion and those votes stood.Then explain why this very thing has happened multiple times in the past.Under federal rules they can. Under many state rules they can as well. Only those states that actually have laws against faithless electors is that not kosher and if I am not mistaken most of those electors can vote how they want as well. They just have consequences when they cast that vote.Yes. That is why I stated:
'that law does not reside within the federal government.'
What we are talking about here is that the constitution does not require the EC to vote in any particular way. Shackles has stated that electors are held by the constitution to vote based on the election results of the state they are appointed from. That is false, the constitution does not hold electors to any standard. The states are free to place any standard on them that they chose (and many have essentially none at all other than they are selected by the party that wins).
You made it sound in the post I responded to like Electors can vote any way they want. If you're saying that's not what you meant then fine, I accept you at your word
What you are trying to convince me is that a state could (in fact) carry more districts clearly choosing a democrat candidate, but the electorate is not bound at all by the results those voting districts carry. In fact, Constitutionally, they are free to simply give their states' electorates to the Republican candidate, if that's what they [the electorate] would rather do as their OWN decision.
I don't see any clear evidence of that in the Constitution, with any federal law that you have provided, or with regard to how the founders had established the electoral college in of itself.
Again, you have to show evidence of where this is allowed under Federal law or under our. Constitution. I already stated my case for the electoral college process, listing where and stating verbatim what the Constitution says. I need more than "the federal law allows" or "it's stated in several state laws".
You have to be able to back up your argument with those facts you claim are there.
AGAIN, that is hard proof you are interpreting the passage incorrectly. If you were correct, those events could not have legally happened. They did. That is hard proof.