In an attempt to shed light on this particular conflict of interest, let us now take a little trip down memory lane. In 1924 at the Democratic National Convention (the "Klanbake") there was a division on prohibition (Wets and Drys) and other issues, which led to 102 ballots of deadlock between front runners Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo. A compromise candidate, "dark horse" John W. Davis, was chosen for the 103rd ballot. In 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt won the election, being the last candidate to actually win after being nominated by brokered convention. In 1948 there was a Republican Thomas E. Dewey who sparked the headline "Dewey defeats Truman", and in 1952, (1960 on the CFR site) we had Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson who went up against John F. Kennedy. In 1976 the Republican nominee was in question when they chose Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan.
Although most would agree the possibility for a nomination by brokered convention in either party resulting in a presidency is scant, I for one do not see the harm in regular people understanding what a "brokered convention" is, and how it could possibly be the game plan, for certain private interests within the fake two party paradigm. Just because Trump is the front runner now, does not mean the delegate votes will not change the outcome in favor of, god forbid, Jeb Bush. The question is...who is lining who's pockets??
A brokered convention is when no single candidate has a "majority" of delegates before the first official vote, in either partys convention for nomination, of their respective presidential candidate. Exactly how the delegates are selected is quite confusing, and either party has it's own rules. The Democratic party has "superdelegates" who are not obligated to commit to any particular candidate, while the Republican partys delegates will vary from state to state. If in fact no majority is reached, the delegates will have to continue voting until a majority is reached. This scenario seems to leave the "people" out of the equation.
To add to the confusion we will throw in the "independents", voters who are unaffiliated with any party. Some states will allow independents to vote regardless of party affiliation, others will allow them to change their party affiliation up to the day before an election, and there are 18 states in the U.S. that do not allow independents to vote in the primaries at all. Seems convenient for the two party paradigm, but that's my opinion.
According to an infowars.com interview with Jesse Ventura, if Trump stays in the Republican party all the way through, it will be too late to switch to the Libertarian party , as the Libertarian party holds their primaries in may. Trump will have to switch now, or risk having the nomination stolen by Jeb bush, through bought and paid for delegates. He will lose and have no where to go. Quite a pickle.