Faithless electors are I think one of the things that are why its important to keep the fraud in mind and public. Say, the PA courts slap down valid court cases, or simply drag their feet. That for example seems to be partially how JFK stole the 1960 election: they did massive, obvious voter fraud, on the scale of about 100k outright fake votes, not even including all the vote buying shinanigans going on, and it was clear as day, but the recounts and audit of the vote was dragged out and the recount itself was actively worked against too.
But, because they were able to drag out the recounts until something like January/febuary, JFK was at that point already president for 2 months, and the down ballot people who cheated to victory had also taken over the investigation, and the mob investigating the mob found that the mob hadn't done enough to flip the election (that 100k number seems to have been generated by the new fraudulent state administration investigating itself.)
But, the fact that the 1960 election had about 100k in outright fraudulent votes, more or less from 2 counties from my understanding, suggests that a million+ outright fraudulent votes across the about 10-20 suspect counties is not unreasonable or out of line with historical norms, and that the things we've seen are suggestive of such widespread fraud.
As long as it can be pushed through the courts and seen as reasonable, ideally the courts can decide things before the election has to be called, but if they are able to slow walk it, the electors themselves could decide to vote in line with the legitimate vote. So, a couple of electors from PA deciding to vote for Trump rather than rewarding such fraud.
Probably not enough to change things, but if for example we could win 1-3 court cases to defininitively flip the vote to the true outcome, a couple of faithless electors voting for the true outcome, rather than the fraudulent outcome, could be the final safety on an honest system.
justthenews.com
