In Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton writes:
“The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: “For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,” yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.”
This is what the anti-Trump forces is counting on to overturn the election via the Electoral College.
It is true that the Electors in the College may vote against the will of the people who elected them but by what standard have they to judge? Political expediency? Allegiance to a particular ideology? Irrational distaste for a particular person? Revenge?
Hamilton states also that “Another and no less important desideratum [something that is needed or wanted] was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.”
That the the “Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves” implies that unless the candidate is manifestly unfit for the position, the will of the people of each state is to be respected. While there is no statute that bars “faithless electors”, there are fines and sanctions for those choosing to ignore the results of their state. It is not true that these state “pledge laws are unconstitutional, quite the opposite. The constitutionality of state pledge laws was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952).
The very type of chaos contemplated by the progressive left is exactly what Hamilton expressed the Electoral College was designed to avoid: “It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief” and that the electors themselves must be persons possessing certain qualities, “It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”
So good luck to the faithless electors and the progressive left who, like the Brexit opponents in the UK, simply want to keep holding elections until they get an outcome they want…but a little warning: this is the kind of action that breeds insurrections and violence. If you threw your little fits and cried after Hillary lost and you think this is the right thing to do, then there are those who will gladly give you something much more substantive to cry about.
It’s this sort of chicanery that caused people who used to support you to turn their backs on you. This is why you lost.