I agree with that, certainly for a delegate. But I also see an alternative, being of mind of how things ran before there were primaries, and being of a mind that the public vote is, on balance, a recipe for disaster.
The delegate needs to make a good argument for his preference. He needs to express WHY the populist sentiment leads to disaster.
The last few generations have missed that boat, and we are at the point where people vote money for themselves (rent seeking in its various forms), without being told "no." The candidates pander to the interests that provide the best financial return for the candidate. That's how the business rent-seekers have managed to get control of the government.
I agree with you in principle when seeking a vote from a constituency to be their representative to the legislative process over a period of time. One needs to lay out their philosophy and ask voters if it aligns with their own, and would be comfortable with the candidate as their representative to others.
Is that what Barr did? Barr was selected to do only one thing: represent the choice of the voters on this one single decision.
It seems that Barr ran for delegate on the premise of REJECTING Trump, the opposite of the wishes of the voters. Is Barr acting on the fear that the plurality of Georgia voters made a "disaster" in choosing Trump, and it is his mission to overturn the desire of those whose slot his filling for this one single purpose?
-PJ