Over the years, several states have implemented election laws to bind an elector's vote to the candidate chosen by its people or impose a fine. Were these laws in response to any votes made in bad faith? Did the lawmaker's/justice's thinking change over the years as to the original factors the founding fathers considered when drafting such laws?
Initially in the United States electors were intended to use their best judgment, to take the results in their state under advisement, but allow them the opportunity to use their own wisdom if necessary.
Over time, it became of the custom and expectation that electors would cast their votes for the candidates of the party that nominated them. They became proxies in essence.
Faithless electors have traditionally been little more than a historical curiosity. You would hear about them for certain elections you learned about, but they never had a meaningful impact on the outcome. The 2000 election changed that. It was so close that a small number of faithless electors could have changed the outcome.
The issue moved into hyperdrive with the election of Donald Trump, a Republican who had significant dissenters in his own party and as a result there was a meaningful effort to get electors to switch. It didn’t work, but it highlighted the concerns with the system. More laws were passed and one of those existing laws was challenged and a recent Supreme Court decision upheld the ability of states to punish or replace electors who vote for a candidate other than the party’s nominee.
The only potential issue with these laws is the situation where a presidential candidate dies shortly before or shortly after the election and still manages to win; it’s unclear whether these laws would bind electors to vote for the dead candidate.