Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself?
I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.
and I'm only advocating respect
Boo hoo? Ok.
The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions.
The electors are selected by the voters. The names are on the ballot, the electors know who they are pledging to vote for. If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.
They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process.
The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES. Not only did they get the job because they pledged to vote for the candidate they represent, they are, in many cases, required by law to do so.
Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.
who fall victim to your lies
I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.