Why did the Supreme Court deem it important to uphold faithless elector laws? What might the consequences be if electors were allowed to vote differently than for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support?

In the ruling of the Supreme Court, state electors should not go contrary to the intentions of their state's electoral bodies.  In addition, the parties elected the electors to vote according to their party loyalties and not according to their individual preferences.

The Twelfth Amendment of the Constitution was not drafted to favor individual prejudices.  Electors were specifically required to back their parties when casting their electoral college votes so that they could vote in line with their state's popular votes.

The consequences of allowing electors to vote differently than for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support are:

a) Electors risk using their state's mandate in favor of their personal prejudices.

b) Electors will become disloyal to the parties that elected/selected them as electors.

c) Electors may favor candidates that did not win their state's popular votes, thereby denying the people their right to have their votes counting.

Explanation:

The faithless elector laws being enacted by the states are one of the safeguards to ensure that electors vote for the candidates that win the popular votes in their respective states.

the correct option is: a liberal.

the kind of person that is most likely to hold a left-wing political ideology is liberal because they have in common that they support human individual rights and liberties. also, they both have politically and economically centrist.

moreover, a liberal believes that everyone should have equal rights as well as opportunities to succeed in life, and the freedom to make their own decisions as long as they don't attack the rights of other people. all people deserve the same opportunities and basic needs.

the western roman empire flourished, but the eastern portion of the empire struggled.