Does it have to be unanimous for her to get the EVs? Isn't she ahead even without him?

I should know this, I guess...

maybe they could fine him, fire him and his vote won't count anyway. Political suicide all for nothing.

Why does he wait until now to make this announcement? He knew months ago he would be pledged to Hillary, so he's just grandstanding. And sealing his own doom.

Think again about the Electoral College. Now, if the election is close we only have to recount or deal with a few states with enough electoral votes to change the outcome. Without it, imagine the work to recount every vote in the country.

... in state law that would enable the state to do anything about it. Could be that the Democratic Party has rules that enable substitution.

In any case, when Congress judges the legitimacy of the electoral votes on Jan 6, it's their duty to count and certify only those votes that have been cast pursuant to a lawfully conducted election, and in accord with state law governing the process.

Under the statute, electors file a pledge with the SOS. Any vote not cast in accord with that pledge cannot be considered legitimate. Congress would be obligated to toss it out. (But, who knows, perhaps, like Mikey in those old Life commercials, "they'll count anything." They were obligated to toss the Florida electors in 2001, when intervention by SCOTUS rendered that election incomplete and unlawful under Florida law.)

On January 6, 2017, Congress has a duty to judge the legitimacy of the electoral votes cast. They have a duty only to certify and count only those electoral votes cast pursuant to a lawfully conducted election, and cast in accord with the laws of the state.

A vote from an elector that violates their pledge to vote for the party nominee that wins the state election, in all likelihood, be deemed unlawfully cast and thrown out. The winner of the majority of the counted votes wins becomes president.

But, who knows? Seems like congress likes to just count every electoral ballot, regardless of how unlawful. Like they did in 2000, when they counted the patently unlawful Florida electors. (When SCOTUS stopped the count, the election was rendered incomplete under Florida law. The congressional duty to judge demanded that the votes that were cast pursuant to that unlawful election be tossed out.)

Many want to get rid of the electoral college. One reason not to is that -- as long as Congress fulfills their duty to judge -- the count in Congress provides a backstop against corrupt state elections. Of course, no fail safe can work if the people responsible don't do what they are supposed to to.

State law imposes criminal penalties on "faithless electors." Throughout history there have been 157 instances of electors going against the will of the majority. Because the Electoral College gives political power to small states, it is highly unlikely that a Constitutional Amendment would be ratified to do away with Electors.
Washington has 12 Electoral votes, not 20.

If enough states joined theNational Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) (with "enough" being enough states to represent 270 or more electoral votes) then the winner of the national popular vote would be the winner of the election.

Washington is one of the states that has joined the compact.

Now, I'm not advocating this. If Congress fulfilled its obligation to judge the legitimacy of the electoral votes, and only certify and count those cast pursuant to lawfully conducted elections, then the existence of electoral college (and the process of judging/counting their votes) would serve as a backstop against a corrupt state election.

The problem is, Congress has failed miserably at fulfilling it's obligation (When SCOTUS stopped the count in FL, they did nothing but render that election incomplete. Electoral votes cast pursuant to an incomplete election are unlawful almost by definition.) If they had done their duty, Gore would have been inaugurated in 2001.

et.al.
Update: Gordon v NARA et.al.(Case 1:16-cv-02458-RJL )
All filings will be posted in pdf at:
http://www.electors.us

Plaintiff Feb.10th, 2017 Court flings:

[ AMENDED COMPLAINT
Federal question, did NARA officials certify Certificates of Votes for presidential electors in violation of the “Office of Trust” clause of Art.II§1 and/or the malapportionment penalty for citizen right to vote "abridgment" clause of Amend. XIV§2 of the U.S. Constitution, facilitating the election of the president in 2016 by an illegally constituted Electoral College? ]

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
...Plaintiff's AMENDED COMPLAINT is supported by Defendants’ unwitting affirmation of Plaintiff's principle claim in their Motion to Dismiss... Thus Defendants affirm their authority and responsibility to ensure the constitutional integrity of presidential electors submitted by the states. This singular unwitting admission by Defendants constitutes a nugatory refutation of the entire set of arguments Defendants posit in their now fatally flawed Motion to Dismiss.

AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

...Plaintiff seeks to move this Court to issue declaratory judgments and provide injunctive relief to ensure NARA faithfully discharges its responsibilities in regards to oversight of future presidential elections to certify the integrity of Article II Section 1 presidential electors and inclusive as amended by Section 2 Fourteenth Amendment presidential electors in order to effect an unbiased administration by NARA of all of the constitutional provisions governing presidential elections.
... There is facial evidence that Defendants are complicit in the illegitimate seating of at least 50 Trump Electors in the recent Electoral College in violation of U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. There is facial evidence that Defendants are complicit in at least 62 legitimate Clinton Electors not being seated in the recent Electoral College as alleged in the original complaint in violation of U.S. Const. amend. xiv, § 2.