I think the reason, according to historians, is because it took a while for everyone to assemble in one place and cast their final votes (which I'm pretty sure is why the elector vote is a month after the election). News traveled slowly at the time but it was possible that you might learn something of the President-Elect during the period after the election that might make him illegitimate in your eyes. I think that's the general justification for why the system exists, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this why the founding fathers developed faithless electors? Or did that come later?
I think the reason, according to historians, is because it took a while for everyone to assemble in one place and cast their final votes (which I'm pretty sure is why the elector vote is a month after the election). News traveled slowly at the time but it was possible that you might learn something of the President-Elect during the period after the election that might make him illegitimate in your eyes. I think that's the general justification for why the system exists, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
Later. In the founders' view, ALL electors were "faithless". They were meant to be a deliberative body that met and decided on the president freely.
The article says it would have to be approved by congress, so I have little faith in this route
It depends on if we win the House. If nobody gets 270 electors than every state gets a single vote.