I have a question.

[Zera]

Hello, long time reader, first time poster here.

What exactly is "storming the convention"? I've seen people say it here, but I have no idea what it is. Is it something we can do as a chance for Paul to get the nomination?

Thanks, and sorry if this is considered spam.

[FrankRep]

Brokered convention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

This is what they might be referring to.


A brokered convention refers to a situation in United States politics in which there are not enough delegates obtained during the presidential primary and caucus process for a single candidate to obtain an absolute majority in the first round of voting of the presidential nominating convention. Once the first ballot has been held, and no candidate has a majority of delegate votes, the convention is then considered brokered, and the nomination is decided through political horse-trading and further ballots.

[Zera]

Hmm, well, I'm not sure, but it may be it. I also remember seeing somewhere else that a lot of people could just leave the convention, causing a new majority vote to be the nominee. But I'm not sure if this has a term.

Also, is there a website that explains the GOP nomination well? Because I see a lot of terms here that I don't quite understand, like the voting in the first round, and then the second...

[Banana]

There were four different ideas flying around:


1) Brokered convention, as already mentioned above.

2) Seeing to that every delegates are a RP supporter, even if bound to other candidates.

3) Have as many RP supporters volunteer for the convention and have a march/rally outside of the convention.

4) Having a "rump convention" on the premise that if GOP won't play by its own rules, walk out as a protest and offer a separate slate of delegates, nominate RP then put him on the ballot as a Republican.



Of those, IMO, #2 is most sensible thing to do. #1 is unlikely and requires a dice roll, but is very good thing, especially if we do well with #2. #3 is all well and good, but I don't know if this will be interpreted as intimidation or something... #4 is certainly interesting, but I believe we'd need *MUCH* more clear-cut evidence because anything less, it'll be just viewed as a sore loser.