Colorado worked the way Coloradoans decided beforehand, and published for all candidates to know. And published before hand just like other states. The basic mechanism, in place for over 100 years, means instead of polling places where folks stop by if they feel like it on election day (primary states), they prefer a different mechanism - voters get off their duff, congregate at caucus locations and elect delegates. Clearly, the CO mechanism requires a bit more moxie. But, with 50 states, there is a smorgasbord of mechanisms - some will favor more conservative candidates, some less (like where ‘Rat voters can vote in Pub primaries).
Candidates can read the rules and abide by them, or they can let it slide, see how it turns out, jump for joy if they win, and whine if they lose.
You evaded the questions. See the question marks?
One more time.
Are you suggesting what occurred in Colorado was not tailor made for those motivated to manipulate elections?
Are you suggesting what occurred in Colorado’s caucus/delegate system a few days ago was principled, above board, legitimate and honorable?
The rules do not discuss allowing unchecked corruption, not in writing, in the RULES, doofus.
How to suppress the Frontrunner’s supporters from even becoming his earned delegates, or serving to benefit his candidacy is not something you want in print, in the RULES.
How to institute “litmus tests” to identify the supporters of the Frontrunner, in order to reject them from serving as his delegates, is suppression, and it’s not something you want in print, either, in the RULES.
How to reject and entirely replace any and all of the Frontrunners representation, with frauds, is just not going to be found in writing, in the RULES.
This is about moral behavior and immoral behavior, and it is not among the words you find used, in the RULES.
How to replace the Frontrunner’s delegates with supporters of his opponent is not a virtue, and obviously it isn’t selling. It’s a form of fraud, misrepresentation, a lie.
Talk about a RICO violation.