Actually, it doesn't force the delegates to respect the primary results. It forces the delegates to respect the state party rules which may be created by the state party bosses to disenfranchise a non-establishment candidate. It may also run afoul of federal law which, if I recall correctly, prohibits the binding of delegates at conventions by anyone.
What is the point of electing delegates if their only job is to sit down and shut up. The delegates will have the right to do as they're told, and then pray that Romney or any other future nominee don't use the monarchical power they granted themselves to veto the platform points that they don't like anyway. If the party doesn't like the way way the delegate system worked this cycle, then they shouldn't hold a caucus and a primary in the same state in the same election cycle. Why did the GOP bind all delegates in some states to the caucuses and then still hold a primary that didn't legally matter?
The problem here is not that delegates won't vote for the person they were pledged too. The problem is that some states hold both caucuses and primaries and that when this happens the primary has no legal role in the selection of delegates. These different electoral methods result in a different electoral outcome. Both systems are legitimate, but If the GOP bosses don't want a contradiction between the Caucus and primary results they should either give both the caucus and primary some legally binding role in the delegate selection process, or the party should use one of these methods but not both.
It is ridiculous to hold a binding caucus while then holding a non-binding primary that has no influence on the delegate selection process and then complain that the caucus results didn't reflect the primary results. It is wrong to muzzle the delegates freedom of choice. What they should do is fix the process of delegate selection.
It is wrong to pass rules binding delegates to do as the party bosses want. What's the point of having slave delegates? (Let's say something scandalous came out on the presumed party nominee during or just before the convention?) Under these new rules, nearly the entire convention could be in agreement and vote against the candidate, but he would still win the nomination, because under these proposed rules the convention secretary would have to count all of the national delegates votes for the scandalous nominee. The GOP's nominee should be elected by fairly elected delegates who give their consent at the convention willingly, not by compulsion.
No such law applies to primary Conventions.
The actual vote casting by the States in the actual election is another matter
What is the point of electing delegates if their only job is to sit down and shut up.
They are selected not elected.
A fine point to be sure, but a very important one