Which Issue of the Federalist Papers Describe the Electoral College

Which Issue of the Federalist Papers Describe the Electoral College?The constitutional question of whether the president is elected by popular vote or by electors elected by the states has been asked about the constitutionality of the three issues in the New York Federalist Papers. If the two previous presidential elections were carried out properly, and there is no reason to believe they were not, then it must be the case that the president is not elected by the people in any constitutional sense.Of course the electoral college was designed by the framers of the constitution in order to prevent a small group of states from deciding the outcome of an election. Unfortunately, this would occur frequently if only one person was elected but the state had a large number of delegates from that state. The electors would probably choose a more populous candidate so that he could have the largest number of states.One of the questions is about the composition of the electoral college. There ar e seventeen states where electors do not get to vote directly for president. They are called 'faithless electors.' Most of the time these electors are appointed at the state level by the party leaders in the state who are strongly opposed to a particular candidate.Usually they are appointed in such a way that the electors pick a member of the political party that represents them in the senate and the new consul in the Congress. So in essence the electors can be loyal to the party without being loyal to the president.These votes would still count if the person nominated by the opposition party to become president of the United States was elected. In fact there is no evidence that these electors even planned to vote for the opposition party candidate when the electors met in their respective states. However, the constitution requires that each elector to vote for the candidate that received the greatest number of votes in the election.The oath of office that these electors take states that they are bound to vote in accordance with the democratic or Republican form of government in the state in which they are members. If they do not vote according to the will of the people of the state then they are guilty of nullifying the popular vote. This is serious stuff.An argument that some are making to invalidate these votes is that if the electors do not vote according to the will of the people of the state then they are guilty of nullifying the popular vote. It is a strange argument. In most states the electors are free to vote according to their own preferences, but if they are going to be acting as a 'consulate' in the manner in which I have described above then they cannot be serving the people of the state any less than the people of the state serving the states.You can't serve two masters, much less two republics. If the electors are going to be acting like a 'consulate' then they are required to act according to the will of the people of the state in which they a re elected. The issue of presidential electors behaving like a 'consulate' is a matter of great concern.