SCOTUS blocks "faithless electors"

Victory for popular vote in SCOTUS ????:  In a 9-0 vote, the court unanimously ruled against "faithless electors", members of the elector college who go rogue and refuse to vote for the candidate who won their state. Electors will now be required to vote in line with the candidate who won the popular vote in the state. Now this is a good thing in a democracy as long as people are well informed. See below details -- to the best of my understanding....

In case, you wonder about pros and cons of using popular vote versus electoral college. Hamilton, the federalist supported electoral college. Think about it. If elections were decided only based on popular vote than all candidates would be campaigning mostly in California, Texas and New York - most populous states. Voting by electoral college requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities and campaign in rural areas. Also it increases the political influence of small states. On the flip side, a major negative is that sometimes a candidate may win the popular vote but lose electoral vote or vice versa. Also, electoral vote results in candidates campaigning disproportionately in a few "swing states" and it gives votes in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California). Today's court decision gives restores some power back to the popular majority vote in the state.

My personal view --- Hamilton believed that electors would be unbiased since they do not hold political office. But in my opinion, things are much more complex now and people can be bribed and enticed in multiple ways. So I prefer popular vote. But it would also not be a completely good system, if a candidate never visited states like Wyoming, the Dakotas or Vermont or did not care for people living in rural areas. Balancing the needs of diverse range of people spread out in vast area of United States, presents a unique challenge -- I like today's ruling.