The States elect delegates to send to the national convention much like they would for an Article 5 Convention of States. Those delegates are elected at local precincts, then district-wide, then state-wide. The state-wide delegates then represent their states at the national level.
If there were rampant caucus craud going on, as happened in 2008 for Democrats, then it would be wise - I'd say obligatory - to oppose a contested convention. But there hasn't been rampant fraud. You'd have heard about it when precinct caucuses were held. (Some still upcoming.) Trust me about the caucus fraud. I lived it in 2008 during Operation Chaos and have detailed it at length here at FR.
The delegates sent by the states to the national convention are the delegates who serve on the Rules Committee and propose the rules for the convention. The rules are not set in stone until the whole national convention of delegates approves them during a floor vote. The Rules Committee proposes who can and cannot be listed on ballots at the convention. Currently, most members of past Rules Committees agree that no candidate who did not run in this year's primary should be allowed on any ballot.
Instead of hollering about rules changes and contested convention chicanery, we need to make it crystal clear to Paul Ryan than he shall follow the rules passed by our elected delegates, because Boehner didn't in 2012. That's where we need to focus the wrath - Paul Ryan.
BECAUSE THESE DELEGATES HAVE ALREADY VOTED IN THEIR STATE PRIMARY.
BECAUSE THESE DELEGATES GET TO VOTE ONCE IN PRIMARY, AGAIN IN FIRST BALLOT, AGAIN IN SECOND BALLOT AND AGAIN IN A THIRD BALLOT IF DEEMED NECESSARY.
BECAUSE STATES ALLOCATE THEIR DELEGATE VALUE ON PRIMARY DAY.
BECAUSE THAT STATE ALLOCATION IS MANIPULATED AT NATIONAL CONVETION.
BECAUSE 1237 IS A FALSE NUMBER WHEN DELEGATES VOTE GET COUNTED *FOUR* TIMES TRYING TO REACH IT!
If you take a peek at my profile page, you'll notice that I do not support an Article V Convention. Basically, my reasons are:
1. The outcome of such a convention, in these days of the uniparty, would NOT be the rainbows and unicorns Article V supporters suggest it would be.
2. I'm sick of so-called "Conservatives" whining and moaning about big government and the lack of personal responsibility, only to come up with a big government solution that takes the responsibility out of the people's hands and places it square on the shoulders of big government (term limits). It's sad to see so-called "Conservatives" stomp their feet and throw a temper tantrum just because they can't seem to get their way in an election.
3. The biggest issue that Article V supporters push is term limits. We already have term limits - voter imposed term limits - it's called vote the bastards out. Mandated term limits, like campaign finance regulations, stifle free speech. If I want to donate my entire paycheck to a given candidate, I should be able to do so. Likewise, if I want to vote for a given candidate over and over again, I should have every right to.
Trump has done one thing with his campaign, and that is expose the nominating process for the scam that it is. If the Establishment can't get their guy elected through the illusion of choice, they'll use the "rules" to get their guy in. I and millions like me will NOT stand for that nonsense. WE WILL WALK from the GOP, and I guarantee I will never, EVER, for any reason whatsoever, vote for another Republican as long as I live.
If, at the end of the primaries, Cruz has the majority of the delegates, whether or not he makes the "magic number", I'll vote for him. Likewise, if Trump gets the majority, I'll vote for him. Anything less will be the continuation of the GOPE bending us over and screwing us. I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of nonsense, and won't be a part of it anymore.