Comment: I don't really see the benefits

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I have been thinking, Shazad... (see in situ)

I don't really see the benefits

I don't think that would really help Romney, and I also don't like the precedent it would set for future primaries. It would seem to me that it would send positive reinforcement to those who in future primaries want to consider state conventions to be an appropriate means of overruling voters. It gives too many concessions to those who have been living the Richard Gilbert dream of all delegates being unbound. Next time around, people will be even more emboldened to turn every convention into a war because they would have seen that if they complained enough, they would eventually get their way.

Every delegate who is bound to a specific candidate knew from Day 1 that he/she was required to vote for that individual unless released, no matter who their preferred candidate was. I don't think Romney would believe they would vote for him in November if they are still adamant about voting against him now, even when they're required to do so. And I don't feel bad in the least for a delegate who is bound to vote for someone they don't like. They knew the rules, even if they didn't like them, and I hope they get held to them. Overall I just don't feel that this would do much for Romney and that it would lead to negative future consequences.