And I did not suggest anything was “justified,” because frankly that’s irrelevant. What matters is what the constitution says and means. It invests the ultimate power to “appoint” electors in state legislatures. States may choose to put that to a vote as a matter of state law, but I struggle to see anything in the constitution that would prevent them from overriding that law, even after an election. If a school principal puts something to the students for a vote—something that the law entrusts to her discretion—can she ignore that vote and do what she wants? Probably!
Finally, I’m not “trolling,” I’m being quite serious. In the US, the state legislatures select the President, just like the EU President is selected by the European Commission. Direct election of the chief executive is a stupid idea, and most civilized countries don’t do it that way. State legislatures taking the power to appoint electors back after holding an election is politically messy, and may violate state law depending on the particulars. But there’s nothing unconstitutional about it. Neither as a matter of the text, or the underlying principles. (As to Senators we should repeal the 17th amendment, but that at least has a textual footing.)