Frankly, I'm offended at your implication. But just for clarification, we are not talking about a "brokered convention" as if it were the US Constitution, are we? Really? A convention whose rules can arbitrarily changed right up until the day before the convention by a group of nameless party insiders? Really? Regardless, I guess if I am to confirm now that in my 18 years here I have a conservative 'respect', then where is this "loyalty oath" I have to sign?
As I pointed out a recent reply, if Trump could change the rules to reduce the number required to nominate him below a majority, why can not the establishment change the rules to require 60% to nominate?
The answer is if this course of conduct is embarked on we have no convention we have anarchy. I think we also have to acknowledge that as much as we both despise the establishment which has rigged the convention in many respects, there has to be some observance of the rules which cannot be dismissed simply because we do not like the people who are making the rules.
If we are going to simply ignore rules by people we don't like, we will have no rules. I think we both agree that politics is a rough game (not beanbag) but at the beginning of this process Donald Trump and Ted Cruz each had the option of running as independent candidates where they would not be subject to the rulemaking power of the Republican Party. They chose to play within the system. Donald Trump has threatened to crash the system by running as a third-party candidate. He wants it both ways.
As much as I deplore the people who make the rules, if Trump wins the nomination he will be making the rules, will Ted Cruz and his supporters have to obey them or will they be free to ignore them?
Of the two men, I believe that Ted Cruz is interested in reforming the process and Donald Trump has interest only in hijacking it.