The usual cycle of political disillusionment is shrinking. Now we can have our illusions shattered almost immediately, without waiting.
This year’s election is unusual for many reasons — not least because of the surprising victory of an avowed socialist on the Democratic side and a billionaire businessman on the other side, with the socialist never having held a solemn private-sector job and the businessman never having run for public office before.
The current frontrunners for the presidential nomination in both parties—Mrs. Hillary Clinton and Mr. Donald Trump—are actively disliked by most Americans. It seems almost certain that we will dislike our next occupant of the Oval Office.
From the very beginning, I mean, without going through a period of disappointment.
Perhaps even more interestingly, the grassroots forces of both major parties are being set on fire, openly rebelling against the overgrown wings of the establishment, so deeply embedded in wealth and false-Washington power… but of course that’s nothing novel or unique about this election cycle. Except that this time, massive voter dissatisfaction and frustration have led to fierce and potentially divisive nomination battles in both parties.
For the first time in four decades, the Republican Party is likely to choose its presidential candidate at a contentious national convention. Mr. Trump’s path to the 1,237 delegates that make up the majority is a arduous one. Senator Ted Cruz and Ohio Governor John Kasich have NO There is only one way left, mathematically speaking, to win a majority of delegates — regardless of their chances of ultimate success in the vote, none of them can achieve an outright victory on the first ballot.
It’s even possible, though much less likely, that Democrats will find themselves in a contested or open-ended convention. Hillary Clinton currently has a tiny lead over Senator Bernie Sanders among delegates won in primaries and conventions, but a much larger one when superdelegates are added to the tally. These superdelegates are Democratic Party heavyweights—incumbents, governors, former elected officials, party officials (read: the problem)—and they make up more than 15 percent of the delegates overall. Clinton leads more than 40 to one among those superdelegates who have pledged to support either candidate. Fewer than a third of Democratic superdelegates remain undecided.
The goal of politics should be to enable the people to create the kind of government they want, within the limitations set by the Constitution and while preserving the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
So when Democratic insiders, as superdelegates, collectively decide to tip the balance of a party election against the candidate for whom a majority of the people voted, that does not seem like an capable or particularly “democratic” nominating system.
Democratic Party defenders say that historically, superdelegates have never voted against the will of the majority of primary and caucus voters. But why a system in which senior party members can influence voters’ decisions?
This is as undemocratic as the Electoral College.
This problem resonates loudly on the Republican side. When one person, say Trump, wins a primary that was presented to the voting public as an opportunity to decide who to award delegates to, and the person who comes in second gets more delegates than the person, say Trump, who wins… well, that doesn’t seem like the way elections should work.
Except for one thing: The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are private organizations that should be able to set their own rules for their own party’s nominating process. We do not want our political parties to be an integral part of the government.
Being private does not mean that the voting public as a whole has to accept the way a political party conducts its affairs. Nominate an unpopular candidate and lose. Nor should government taxpayers be forced to foot the bill for primary elections—as they currently are. Especially when the results of those elections can simply be rejected by a private party.
One person who does play a proper role in party politics is Eric O’Keefe, a civic activist. In recent years, O’Keefe has gained notoriety for his heroic and successful fight against Wisconsin’s unchecked campaign finance police as head of the Wisconsin Club for Growth. He has been a key player in numerous issue campaigns and played a particularly significant role in the term limits movement in the 1990s.
He is definitely excited about the contentious convention. Asked by “Wall Street Journal”Kimberly Strassel of ‘s If this weren’t picking a presidential candidate in a proverbial smoke-filled back room, O’Keefe responded: “What’s wrong with that process? It worked well. Those rooms were full of engaged citizens — people who had a stake in the success of their party and their country. They were vetting nominees, imposing accountability, shaking up the system.”
O’Keefe believes the country was better served when grassroots, rank-and-file party members had more power over party policy and incumbent politicians. That is, before State governments began regulating, subsidizing, controlling, and merging with the incumbent factions of the two major parties.
“I’m interested in self-government,” he told Strassel, “enabling people to know what is theirs and then to exercise that power. Our citizens have become spectators—that’s what the left wants.”
Parties should find ways to listen to voters to win elections. Freedom lovers should also separate government from political parties.
O’Keefe is not advocating intrigue and deals, but for members of the Republican Party to rebel and “practice a great national tradition by exercising their legal, historical right to defeat a man who opposes the majority of their beliefs and instead nominate a candidate who represents them.”
The candidate O’Keefe is opposing is Donald Trump. “I hate tyrants, and I’ve recently come to hate them even more,” says O’Keefe, who argues that “Trump represents institutionalized tyranny. Tyranny grows out of ambitious people grabbing every lever of power available to them.”
Instead, Mr. O’Keefe wants Republicans, who meet in Cleveland in July, to take control of the party and give voters a better choice.
That is, he is calling on Republicans at conventions to stand up for their rights as Americans, to freedom of association. If Republicans want to shake off the chains of the bipartisan establishment, they will have to do it first within their own association—the party.
Otherwise, disappointment will reach gigantic proportions in an election year. he is relaxing.
