Can you expound on exactly what the states can do to minimize the effects of these Rule Changes?
I don't want to minimize the effect of the rule changes. To me, giving the candidate some veto power over the delegates sent to the convention makes sense. We disagree over Mitt Romney, but let's go back to 2008 as an example.
Many people in the party hierarchy seemed to want Rudy Giuliani or John McCain to be our nominee as we went into the primary season. Rudy Giuliani lost too much momentum when he refused to participate in any contest before Florida, but let's assume that John McCain had health problems that kept him from running at all. If that had happened, Mike Huckabee might have won Iowa and South Carolina. If Rudy Giuliani had campaigned in New Hampshire, he might have won. Mitt Romney would have lost support quickly once Huckabee and Giuliani were splitting victories. Under those conditions, I could easily see many state GOP establishments hoping to seed their delegations with Giuliani supporters even if Mike Huckabee won the state. In that case, this kind of rule would help prevent the establishment from seeding delegations this way by giving Mike Huckabee veto power over delegates pledged to him. He'd pick delegates who would come to the convention willing to be loyal to him instead of people looking for an excuse to change their votes and give the nomination to Rudy Giuliani.
I realize that all sorts of people wanted an ugly floor fight this year to try to give the nomination to anyone but Mitt Romney. They spouted the usual "establishment" insults the way that liberals cry "racist" whenever they lose an argument. This year, these rules would be a hindrance to "conservatives" trying to derail Mitt Romney. Next time, the same rules may be all that saves a conservative from being derailed by someone more liberal.