Wow, that argument went way around the bend to not address the issue. Electors are representatives of a particular nominee. Individual voters are voting for the Elector representing the nominee they want to vote for.
If the Elector the voters cast their vote for turns around and votes for a different person they are defrauding the individual voters.
Fraud should not be allowed by Courts of Law.
If a state decides to allow direct election of Electors and a candidate for Elector does not pledge to vote for a candidate but instead appeals to the voter's sense of judgement, how can that Elector be faithless? How can the state bind the Elector's vote to anything?
This hypothetical Elector has promised to vote his conscience.
Maybe I didn't state it clearly at the beginning, but I think the ruling that a state can't bind an Elector is correct because of such a hypothetical as I just listed.
For me, it still comes down to the principle that a person's vote is his own franchise, and no law can compel him to give up his vote to the state. The Constitution says that Electors meet to vote, not meet to pass along the state's mandate.
-PJ