SO WRONG  HILLARY CLINTON   new york just wrong but i read she has to vote trump if he wins new york that willl be pricless

vj you lost me on that one..........

Hillary claimes she is an elector for NewYork state.

Hillary, Nancy, Maxine.........millions in the bank but nothing makes them happier than disruption, division and never-ending attention trolling. 

It's NY. Just like CA, I doubt Trump can win it. But if he does, she has no choice but to cast her vote for him. If she doesnty, she'll be removed from that position. 

Hillary and Chelsea say Trump is obsessed with her.  I do believe that is the other way around.  I don't understand why these washed up people continue to have a voice their opinion.  They provide nothing of value and only seek to disrupt.  Harry Reid resurfaced the other day.  Lord say it ain't true.  Then we have Michael Steele, Romney, Kasich and more on the republican side that can't get beyond Trump.  Don't they realize we have Trump because of people like them.

There where two electors that did not vote the way thier state voted last time and nothing happened to them.

I dont see that happening, shes has gotton away with so much already.. Hell she didnt even get a slap on the hand for all that she has done.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-07-06/supreme-court-rules-states-can-bind-electoral-college-representative-votes

here is the ruling surpreme court the way i read  is you have to vote the way  the state voted

Only these states require that th electors follow the majority vote ......

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108)

Most of these state laws generally assert that an elector shall cast his or her vote for the candidates who won a majority of the state’s popular vote, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector.

Over the years, however, despite legal oversight, a number of electors have violated their state’s law binding them to their pledged vote. However, these violators often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's

It's amazing to me how this issue of rogue voters of the electoral college never fails to come up, every single year, yet there has never been anything meaningful to arise out of this.  
The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court settled this, for the most part.  Electoral College voters must vote according to the dictates of each individual state, or in the case of Nebraska and Maine, the congressional districts.  This notion of rogue EC voters was a liberal wet dream designed to create chaos and ultimately the abolishment of the Electoral College.

Back to the drawing board - a Constitutional Amendment.  It won't happen.