The electoral college was created to prevent a majority from doing such things, but having the electoral college override the will of the people creates all sorts of problems (and possible tit-for-tat in future elections).
Well, it would have been pretty damn nice to see it “activate” when a candidate with 34 felonies and two impeachments won the election, but that didn’t happen, so any supposed utility is immaterial now. I disagree with the entire concept in principle and do believe that the democratic vote should choose the candidate (even now). I just don’t think most folks actually know what they bargained for.
I think a bunch of states actually make it illegal for electors to be faithless.
What does it mean for it to be illegal? If they cast faithless votes, would those votes stand, but then they open themselves up for prosecution? or would the votes not stand at all.
Yeah, the one useful feature I ever thought it might have would be as a check against a crazy-unqualified demagogue, and since then I have seen it fail spectacularly, twice.
That was the original intent. It’s like a half way to a parliamentary system where the legislature elects a PM except here it is a separate one time use assembly.
In fairness to the framers, it was originally supposed to increase in size along with the growth of the House of Representatives.
The electoral college was created in the time before the Internet, computers, television, radio, telephone, telegraph, electricity, the automobile, the airplane, and the train. It was logistically impossible to have a national popular vote at the time. Even the gap between the election and inauguration was based on the time it would take a man on horseback to reach DC from the farthest point out in the country.