William Josephson has, once again, written on these pages about the electoral college ("To Bind or Not To Bind," June 3, 2020). He is right to criticize the current New York state senate bill that would bind presidential electors to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote, or strip them of their office.

Apart from the fact that there have not been in modern history any so-called "faithless" electoral votes from New York, and the very few cast throughout the country in the last hundred years have been nevertheless counted as valid by the United States Congress, it is not a good idea for the state legislature to mandate such obeisance. After all, unanticipated events can occur between Election Day and the date electors meet that may inform an elector's vote. A perfect example of this occurred when presidential candidate Horace Greeley died right after Election Day in 1872, and most of his pledged electors cast ballots for another candidate.  (Greeley had not won the election, so the ultimate outcome was not affected.)

The real solution is for a political party to select a slate of electors who are tried-and-true supporters of both the party and the presidential standard bearer. This method has worked almost perfectly.

In any event, as pointed out by Mr. Josephson, the issue as to whether a state can even attempt to compel such voting is sub judice in the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Goldfeder is special counsel at Stroock and teaches Election Law and the Presidency at Fordham Law School.  He submitted an amicus brief in the Supreme Court's case on the issue.