Can the electoral college revert to its original function to negate its original intent?

There's a knot in the logic of those urging the presidential electors to deny Trump an electoral college majority. It comes between these two propositions:

1. The founders (wisely?) established the electoral college as a potential veto of the popular choice* in case the people (or state legislatures) voted in a demagogue.

2. The popular choice in this election was not a dangerous demagogue, as Hilary Clinton will end up with about 2.5 million more votes than Trump.

Thus, the electoral college should use its veto function to un-veto the popular choice rather than to countermand it.

The disconnect is between the electoral college as designed versus the electoral college as evolved. It was designed to be a deliberative body (or set of bodies, as each state's electors meet separately). It evolved into an inexact and unreliable mirror and intended rubber stamp of the popular choice. Like a human appendix, it serves no practical function except to rupture occasionally.

Levinson's "Our Undemocratic Constitution": a book whose time has come?

This Swampland roundup of disaffection with the Beltway reminds me why this weekend I was moved to check out of the nearest college library Sanford Levinson's Our Undemocratic Constitution (2006), a book whose moment, I would think, has arrived. From Swampland:

--D.C. dysfunction seems to be the theme of the day. Bayh says it's why he's retiring. Former Clinton chief of staff and Center for American Progress president John Podesta, citing GOP obstructionism, says the political environment "sucks." Tea Party angst over big government run amok lands on the front page of the New York Times. A Wall Street Journal headline trumpets: "Senate Woes Flag Wider Disease." The efficacy of Washington today can certainly be debated -- Norman Ornstein recently argued the 111th Congress has been the most productive in decades -- but there is at least a widespread perception that something is broken inside the beltway.

In Our Undemocratic Constitution, Levinson argues that we need a Constitutional Convention to adapt the document to our current needs. He portrays the Constitution as a blueprint for legislative sclerosis and misrepresentation of the will of the people. He indicts the "triple veto" on legislation: the Senate can kill a House bill, the House a Senate bill, and the President a House-Senate bill. He details the distortions and indeed dangers imposed by long lame-duck tenures for Congress and for the President.  He laments the power that life tenure confers on unelected judges, and exposes dangerous ambiguity in the delineation of the powers of the President..  Overarching all is the Constitutionally imposed difficulty of amending the Constitution; Levinson points out that "no other country -- nor, for that matter, any of the fifty American states -- makes it so difficult to amend its Constitution." But the centerpiece of democratic dysfunction is, natch, the Senate.