Who is Kasich? I believe all this hysteria about each primary vote that comes out is all out of focus. The only way to beat Trump as the Republican nominee is to fix the election process, as the Democrats have done with their super delegates.
The battle appears lost and minnows like Kasich may win one or two States, however the internal outrage against the Republican Establishment by its supporters after seeing a wasted Congress and Senate majority, may be too much.
Trump is like an out of control Elephant who will do great damage to the Republican movement. However a shake up and another term for a Democrat President may wake some people up.
Obama’s grovelling to Iran, which is now thumbing its nose in the freshly minted agreement; and his concomitant animosity to America’s only ally in the middle east, Israel, may well be continued under Hillary, although she has shown some sense in calling for sanctions, (yet again) on Iran.
Meanwhile North Korea and China get stronger by the minute and Nero fiddles.
May God help America, because the yanks cannot whilst they are divided so tragically like never before in many decades.
Given how poorly the current frontrunner is showing in some of the polls and his negatives, if he doesn’t get better I may have to support the convention picking someone else, because the safer risk could be to let some of the current frontrunner’s supporters walk instead of risking the base not turning out again.
Of course, the problem is I doubt they have Cruz in mind as the alternative to the front-runner. Otherwise, folks like Romney would be endorsing him.
Ultimately, we live in a republic, not a democracy, and frankly it is very disappointing to the see the GOP base acting like emotional liberals. In a strange way, they may bring this on themselves.
As it is though, it all comes down to the GOP getting the base to turn out. I think independents are hard-pressed to not vote Democratic because Democrats have given them no good reason to, regardless of GOP negatives.
And it’s a more complicated process than is being advertised. At least one state I know of actually votes on the delegates to send to the convention.
Whilst I understand your cogent points, I am at a loss to understand your equation between a republic and a democracy. A republic only notes that there is no monarch. France is a democratic republic. They are not opposite or mutually exclusive.
However, I can understand how your democracy is diluted through the processes of government, such as the super delegates; choice of delegates either by the caucus or the vote; the colleges etc. Very complex as you say.
I’m not sure we need to change the nomination process. One thing to keep in mind is that the process sometimes favors one candidate and sometimes another.
For example, it definitely helped Donald Trump a few weeks ago, when he won all of South Carolina’s delegates with only 32.5% of the vote. But on the other hand, it may happen that he has slightly more delegate votes than Cruz in the convention’s first ballot (just speaking hypothetically, not a foregone conclusion!) but without getting a majority. If so, then the process may work against Trump, since for the second (or later) ballot Cruz could persuade some of Rubio’s or Kasich’s delegates to “come over”.
Yes, I’ve heard about stuff like the “Committee to Draft Speaker Ryan”, but frankly I’m not too concerned about it because I can’t see they’d have a snowballs chance of pulling it off. I believe Cruz delegates will be loyal to him, and I’m sure Trump delegates will be fiercely loyal to him.
Heck, the “Committee to Draft Speaker Ryan” has been disavowed by Speaker Ryan.
No, a republic and true democracy are not really the same thing. There are even differences between a republic and a representive democracy. They are very similar, but different.
In a true democracy, everyone has a vote on issues… Think referendum for everything
In a representive democracy: representives are responsive to vote the will of their voters
While in a republic, representives are tasked with voting their conscience on the issues. They only answer to the people during reelection time.
This difference is very engrained in the Republican Party (which favors republicanism) and the Democratic Party (which favors representative democracy).
Just look how the Dems are always talking about public mandates and referring to polls (flip flopping based on polls). While Republicans continue to stick to issues regardless of public opinion.
Personally, I’m very much a republican as representive democracy can turn into mob rule when the public is mis-informed about issues. Often the elected officials in office really do know a complex issue better than the public.
Honestly… I think the real issue in America is that Americans have lost all respect for lawyers. I work at a law firm. You can see it the way companies now treat their law firms. More and more, law firms are treated like vendors and as a necessary evil; not as a trusted consultant.
Lawyers have themselves to blame. Frivolous law suites driving up insurance costs, complex laws requiring expensive discovery. Plus, a billing system that rewards ineffecient attorneys.
This spills over into government… judges legislating from the bench and representives pontificating instead of being efficient.
Business people have been sick of lawyers for years and now so is the public.
Our system of government will never be cleaned up until he practice of law is considered trustworthy again.
As a Barrister myself since 1986 I suggest that lawyers are not trusted because they are increasingly untrustworthy.
To be a Barrister in Australia as I presume everywhere, we had to pass stringent Ethics and Accounting tests controlled, not by the University, but by the Supreme Court. The morality of law functioned around your first duty which as an officer of the Court was to the Court, ie, justice. The second duty was to your client.
Lawyers who churn through clients on a no win no pay system, abuse this trust quite often. Many “win” a case for a few thousand and then charge tens of thousands extra to the unsuspecting client who comes out owing more than they did before they “won”. America is known for it litigious tendencies which does nothing to raise the standard of its bar.
The fact that it costs over $50,000 to even consider a matter before the Courts in Australia bar the poor from Court justice. It is most likely worse in America. I charged out at $5000 a day a decade ago. My work was industrial so my clients were only large mining companies. However, I could not morally consider such charges if I worked for an individual.
Trust comes when you know a person is on your side, not waiting for your first weakness to bleed you for their benefit. Until one’s duty to your client over-rides your desire for money, lawyers will forever be seen as, at best, a necessary evil.
The fact that so many go on to become politicians only gives further credence to the argument.