Electoral College Update

The Maximum Leader has continued the Molly Mailbag on the Electoral College.

After reading his learned post, I have these observations:

1) I hope J.L. did not think I was casting aspersions on just the Republican redistricting plans. The Maximum Leader is correct; both parties gerrymander. I specifically mentioned the TexRepubs because they are currently in the driver's seat.

2) Uh, J.L., perhaps one should not anger the fair Molly. She lives near you AND totes firearms. Never annoy people who meet one of those characteristics, let alone two.

3) After reading the ML's Constitution excerpt, I am unclear about exactly WHY the Maximum Leader believes that faithless elector laws are illegal; the excerpt just gives the power to APPOINT to the states. Perhaps he is engaging in a little (gasp) loose (gasp) constructivism (gasp)? My view is that faithless elector laws probably violate the intent of the founders; after all, the entire electoral college system is geared to provide filters between the people and the presidency:

People -> State legislature (first filter)

State legislature -> Electors (second filter)

Electors -> President (third filter)

And sometimes:

House of representatives, voting one vote per state delegation on the top three candidates from the electoral college -> President (possible fourth filter)

Good commentary (four years old) can be found here.

If states can constitutionally mandate how their electors vote, could a the Democratic majority of the state of Smallholdertopia mandate that Smallholdertopia's electors vote for Kerry DESPITE the fact that the majority of Smallholdertopia's voters pulled the lever for Bush? If the state legislatures have the power to mandate how electors vote, what would prevent close battleground states from passing laws to ignore the wishes of the electorate? Hmmm...

UPDATE: Here is a good discussion of whether states can regulate the votes of the Electoral College.