I expect to get shit for this, but it's been said time and time again that Republicans can't afford to keep cucking out to Democrats and losing more and more ground like they've been doing for the past, what, 60 years? Frankly, if direct appointment is what it takes to negate all this bullshit the Dems are pulling off, I might actually grow some respect for Republicans- if they don't do this in the event that not even the SCOTUS will rule against fraud that would be considered blatant in any other country, they are done for and I don't even think it's debatable. You can call it scummy, but if it's in the fucking Constitution that electors can do this, I can only imagine that the Founding Fathers even foresaw a scenario where it would be a last resort in the face of unsustainable corruption. Maybe I'm wrong on that since I'm not a history buff, but that's the impression I get- it's why America isn't a democracy, it's a democratic republic.
All that said, I get the apprehension behind it, and I imagine that if it happens, there'll be harsher laws in place for punishing faithless electors so that it can't be abused again. I feel that if an election ever has its outcome changed by faithless electors (from what I know the only times it's happened are due to a candidate dying), then it can only be something that can be afforded once in America's history, at least for the foreseeable future. The entire scenario feels so surreal that I can't see it happening anyway, but at the very least, it might be something the SCOTUS keeps in mind if it even considers brushing off this fraud crisis.
