Ok. A few things. There is no independence for the delegates. Their states voted for them to vote a certain way. To do so, should get them fired. They are selected, not elected.
The GOP Primary is already screwed up. You didn’t state what they wanted to change it to, so I don’t have an opinion on that. I’m all for changing it. It’s horrible.
I probably would be against the changing of rules between conventions without a vote. But I’d have to see more info on it.
The rules they wanted to be in place are listed above in 3 bullets in the main article.
Yes, there was independence for delegates. The reason for the rules change is that Paul’s tactic apparently was correct. He COULD have delegates vote for their choice. It is the national election in which they were pledged.
The compromise is just that: a requirement to vote for whom pledged. I think in a primary campaign to nominate the best candidate that such a rule is very short-sighted. The whole point of a primary is to discover who the candidates are. If something comes out on one of them right at the end of the process, then delegates need not to be pledged but free to vote the best decision.
That's not actually true; as it stands the delegates could cast their votes differently precisely because "what was sold" was NOT what's there. This could come out, say, during the convention. If, for example, the candidate was presented as a pro-life paragon of family morals and then made direct statements that Roe v. Wade was actually a Good ThingTM then there would be reason for the delegates to try to back another person.
To do so, should get them fired. They are selected, not elected.
See the above.
I probably would be against the changing of rules between conventions without a vote. But I’d have to see more info on it.
I'd definitely be against it; in such a case what's to stop someone from publishing a set of rules and then, as soon as the delegates are out-of-earshot changing them? Or worse, being changed in secret?