Yes, that verbatim passage upholds my argument - NOT yours.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.
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.
No, it was quoting verbatim under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall SIGN and CERTIFY, and transmit sealed TO THE SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President
You also did not provide the federal law that states electorates are not bound to what the vote reveals, where I have specifically cited sections of the Constitution
Broken down:
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons,
------- The ELECTORS shall vote. Nowhere is there anything limiting who they vote for.
of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.
------- One of the electors shall reside out of state. This is to ensure the validity of the process.
And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each;
------- And here is where you are failing to understand the amendment. Nowhere has there been a reference of the vote of the state or its process. The ELECTORS voted
-------(according to the first sentence) and the ELECTOR'S votes are counted. The votes in the state election are not mentioned even once. You have been assuming
-------that the list of votes comes from the state election. That is NEVER STATED. What is stated is that the electors themselves voted.
And the rest covers how the vote itself is certified. Notice, again, that the voting process within the state is not mentioned in this paragraph. That is because the vote within the state has nothing to do with the process of the electors actually voting. They are not beholden to the state at all by the feds. You keep asking for a federal law - the federal law is right there,. The very amendment does not restrict the electors votes. They are free to cast a vote for whoever they please. Now, find a federal law or constitutional statement that says the electors are required to vote for a specific candidate.