Professor Lessig; I am not trying to be insulting, and would appreciate a response.
Why are you not concerned with the issue of the tyrannical majority?
Do you actually feel it is withing the right of the majority when that majority only exists because of the population of basically in this election 2 states California and New York (otherwise Clinton would have won the electorates in the other states in question and even after recount efforts is failing to do so), should override the sovereignty of the state?
Simply put when one of the Republican electors said that he would not vote for Trump, but would also not vote for Hillary, I believe you stated that was not enough. I am sorry but I am confused, because the elector is doing his duty as he sees fit, but you are still not satisfied. To me if you are insisting that they can only truly meet their moral duty by voting for your candidate, then you are not supporting the constitutional rights as you claim, but instead are in a veiled attempt to establish a tyrannical majority which is exactly why the 12th amendment was created. I may not be a lawyer, and may not know as much as you do professor, but I do know that the great compromise was created (regardless of the slave vote issue) as a stop gap measure to create an equality of representation for the states, and to prevent the tyrannical majority vote.
Please explain the difference.