You have asserted something as fact, namely that the Colorado GOP officials did not follow the rules. Please supply your source for such a claim.
“You have asserted something as fact, namely that the Colorado GOP officials did not follow the rules. Please supply your source for such a claim.”
No, Colorado was included with the Republican Party generally speaking. Thee are countless ways in which the “process” which is always being put forward as an excuse for the failure of the caucus and convention method of selecting delegates is so corrupted and wildly contrary to both the surrogate polling and the actual primary voting results. All you have to do is look at the 2012. 2008, and earlier elections to see examples of how the Republican Party manipulated the rules and violated the parliamentary rules at the caucus and convention level. John Boehner and Reince Priebus seemed to take particular delight in refusing to hear a call for division, points of order, or objections from the floor when it suited their purpose to deny Paul delegates. Paul and Romney supporters took delight in breaking the parliamentary rules or gaming the rules with technicalities to put themselves in as delegates despite their candidates failing to win the most actual votes in the caucus. Did these same kinds of corrupt irregularities occur in any specific caucus and convention in Colorado? I’m sure people can argue at length about that, and I cannot spare the time to track down the evidence at this time. The argument where I made my objection is the argument claiming the existence of the caucus and convention rules is sufficient cause to conclude a fair process was in place and without question must have been complied with. Any such argument fails due to past experience in previous elections where the process is corrupted by improper applications of the parliamentary rules and by the inherent inequities of the rules of the process being promoted as uncorrupt.