I'd like to see the Electoral College electors vote for someone other than Trump tomorrow. But, if they do so, they should realize they are not simply saying they don't want Trump, but saying they have a right to vote for whomever they choose. They are, in essence, saying we should do away with the election as it is now practiced, and go back to the way the Constitution set it up, which is to elect electors, and then let the electors select the president. We've kind of got things reversed, as the presidential candidate, in essence, selects the electors instead. (You can only be named an elector if you commit to vote for a certain person. So, that person, in essence, is offering to make you an elector.)
What got me a little worked up was a story out of Colorado, of how an elector might vote for someone other than Hillary. The story pointed out that that Colorado law says such a person might be jailed and fined $1000. In what country is it, then, that if you don't vote for the person mandated by the state, you can be jailed and fined $1000? Don't say Russia, obviously, but don't miss the point that that sounds like Russia. It is interesting that in a year in which we are talking about Russian interference, this parallel can also be drawn.
I suggest state laws binding you to a candidate are unconstitutional. If the Constitution says the electors shall select the president -- and it does -- then they should be free to do so. A law that prevents them from doing so should be ruled illegal.
So, a vote against Trump becomes not just that, but it also becomes a vote of protest against an election system that long ago strayed from the Constitution.
And needs to be brought back.