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 pleged to support

Legally, representatives of the Electoral College have the right to vote as they like and for whom they want, ignoring the results of popular vote in their states. State governments, for their part, have the power to impose monetary fines and, in some states, to revoke such votes. The general situation was clarified by the Supreme Court in 1954 in the ruling in Ray v. Blair. It was clarified that the states and parties to which the electors belong have the right to demand from them a preliminary “pledge to vote” and provide for actions in case of violation of such an oath, but they cannot prosecute electors in the framework of criminal procedure of the Code for breaking such an oath.

Now, the Supreme Court places emphasis on the protection of the popular will, which gives voters the task of voting for the required candidates. If this were not the case and the voters chose with absolute freedom which candidate to vote for, the popular will would be severely impaired and the voters would be practically the only voters who would define the destiny of the federal government.

the government created by the constitution is described as one where voters elect representatives to govern. i think that should be ur answer

several states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. the sherman antitrust act was based on the constitutional power of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

you answered my friends question just to get the coins you didn't even give a valid response.