The natural trend to bipolar divide is destructive to most all peoples and must be curtailed.

A desire for a broader concept within the political arena of the United States is thwarted by the established bipartisanship that had evolved and still clutches the authority.  Unfortunately, this is a natural trend that society has to actively steer from.

The two entrenched political parties continue to maintain a strong hold on national elections through the primaries and electoral process.  The hold of the bipartisanship environment makes it difficult – if not nearly impossible – for another party to work its way into influence. In this polarizing environment, people are presented with limited choices.

For generations, the public have been disenfranchised by those running the established parties – both Republican and Democrat.  Except for a few times in American history, the established primary process spoonfed a few candidates for consideration.

On rare occasions – 1860 and 2016 being a couple spotlighted examples – an outburst occurs and the candidate field broadens in chaos.

In the 2016 election, the 17 Republican candidates showed the discord taking place within the rank and files of the Republican Party leadership.  In their intervening confusion, an outsider was able to move in and disrupt the otherwise ‘well directed’ process – creating a few internal factions.

Leading into the 2016 election, the GOP appeared to fragment into 3 general factions, as well as a number of minor camps.  The 3 main factions would seem to be the Tea Party, Moderate Republicans and Left Conservatives.

Even so, many 2016 electors voted for Donald Trump to overturn the cart of established politicians, with a good number of others wishing for Bernie Sanders to do the same.

People were so fed-up with the more conventional offerings, many voters went with someone completely radical and apparently unstable, even praising the electoral system for disallowing Hillary Clinton from becoming elected, though she maintained the national popular vote.

Sanders wrestled with his Independent background and the Democratic use of super delegates worked against his nomination.  Mostly, Sanders wasn’t fit for the Democrats and needed to form another party that reflected what was being done in his camp – though that goes back to the two-party hold problem.

With an even greater number of Democratic candidates coming out for the 2020 U.S. election, it will be interesting to see the outcome.  On things is clear so far; The is still a bipartisan divide and people are still polarizing against the other side, believing they are better than everyone else.

BCW-JZ

The selfishness of people has grown into a dangerous fever.  In their fear of losing what they have, people are turning against other people to prevent someone else from gaining what one has.

They will tell everyone each person can have what they want as long as they earn it, though prevent a great many of people from gaining such opportunities because they are different. It is a common trend – especially more recently – that each person must conform to a common, homogenized viewpoint in order to have such prosperity.

To appear superior, people criticize the accomplishments of others.  They have to. To praise others for their efforts diminishes their own position.  If there is any praise to be given by the selfish people, it is conditional.  So and so did well, though, it would’ve been better if they did what I do.

People take sides, yet call themselves freethinking and independent.  They reject propositions and proposals by other people that would allow a broader perspective, promoting their own advancements and creating the bipartisan ‘Us and Them.’  That is, if they can’t take claim of the other persons superior viewpoints.

BCW-JZ

It has been said that the electoral process allows for rural population to gain balance from urban population, even favoring the minorities over the masses.  There are other aspects that support the electoral process.

The electoral delegates are selected during political party caucuses within each state and those delegates go to national conventions for selecting the candidate of their choice.

A good number of candidates strive to be considered for U.S. Presidency throughout a number of political parties – though very few are able to jump the hurdles and are not given a chance for public scrutiny.

Mostly, this is due to the self-imposed ignorance of the population. Hardly anyone takes the time to view the wide range of possible candidates, so they are accepting to political party leadership to weed out the less desired – hoping the news media will maintain an honest reckoning.  This in part enables the manipulation by the leadership within the parties, as long as they can maintain a façade for the news media.

In reflection of the electoral primary-caucus process, delegates previously chosen at each state by the parties within a constrictive process would then vote for the Presidency depending on the results of the state’s elections.  In most states, the successive political party during the election applies all delegation points (and prior selected delegates) towards the winning party, discounting the losing parties position entirely – no matter the margins of the election results, which is often quite marginal.

It are the same electoral delegates selected during those earlier caucuses who become the bulk delegates, deciding the outcome of the election. 

The political parties who wins the state, all delegates of their state are expected to nominate the one politician.

With the way the delegate numbers are distributed, smaller states have a minor greater influence on electoral numbers than larger states.  Since every state will have at least 3 electoral votes.  Because of the distribution of remaining delegate points from small estate to large estate, larger states have some trimmed away, enablin smaller states to gain an extra point.  Overall, this is a respectable solution to the large population inequity states have.

The electoral process gives a bit more influence on elections to smaller states for an equal number of persons in those small states, as opposed to the same number of people in large states. In this way shifting the view of one hundred persons in Rhode Island (3 electoral ‘votes’) has a slightly greater influence on the electoral count then one hundred persons in California (55 electorals).

As a result, smaller, more rural states (such as Vermont and Wyoming) could have a slightly greater influence on elections than states with large urban populations (like New York and California, even Texas), as long as they gain a number of those smaller states. Adding those smaller rural states together can tip the balance – occasionally doing so.

There are many benefits of the electoral process beyond a slight rebalancing of size inequity.  If there is a question of accuracy with in the election, only the states in question – with margins that could change the outcome – would have to be counted again, alleviating the need to recount every vote in the entire nation. 

The delegation-electoral process is confusing and takes a bit of consideration.  In an attempt to solve the confusion, an example of using the American baseball World Series has been made to illustrate the electoral process, showing that the number of games won, not the overall number of runs, establishes the winner of the competition.  In this way, an anomaly of high runs within one game would not skew the results of the other games play during the World Series.

In most presidential elections, the results are in accordance with the popular voting of the nation and there delegate count leans that way.

Mass/majority rule of governance has created many problems to lesser popular parts of the population and the U.S. Founders use the electoral process to alleviate this tendency. At least, that was the plan.

BCW-JZ

Party delegates are selected during the summer of the Presidential election by attendees of caucuses, becoming the representatives of the party, first for the national convention, then in anticipation of a successful general election.  The procedure is done within several caucuses, where special interest persons meet to discuss matters that concern them, pressing their agendas under the guise of representing the population.

During these caucuses, delegates are selected as representatives to vote for the presidency on behalf of the population somewhat guided on results of elections.

Most states (all, excluding Maine and Nebraska) give the sum of their delegate voting points to the political party that wins the election for their state.  Those are delegates that the party had previously selected during the summer, becoming the representatives for all people within that state, supposedly casting their votes for presidency based on the party they are representing.  In 2016 – as well as prior presidential elections – each of the parties (including the Republican and Democratic) submitted a list of those representatives.  Each of the other minor political parties had submitted their own list, as well. In the next, 2020 presidential election, the process will continue and other delegates will be submitted.

Let’s remember that the selection of the delegates are done in a limited environment of state caucuses, where they go to national conventions.  Most of the attendees of caucuses and conventions are associated with or representing special interest groups, not having many of the general population.  Out of that limited pool, delegates are selected. During this process, candidates for the presidency is achieved, as well as the choosing of delegates associated with the full electoral number of points the state has.  Those same delegates will be associated with the final casting of votes in part of the election winner.

Selection of the actual delegates by the party within their very controlled environment caters to insiders as self-appointed representatives to the general people.  Those who become specifically active within political parties have strong personal aspirations and ambitions.

People, as a whole, desire to be insiders of a group to feel their importance and will capitulate and conform, even convince themselves of the ‘righteous’ nature of the group in order to succeed.  The reward stimulation of that group ‘unity’ feeds the desire

The inclusion within political parties makes people feel good about themselves.  Scientists had shown that such a reaction—and the burst of dopamine (functioning as reward-motivation and behavior stimulation, as well as neurotransmitters) and serotonin (a hormone generally attributed to the feeling of happiness and well-being)—is a social-acceptance responsible for group participation.  Capitulating to group/mass acceptance of authority gains those stimulations. The same effect is derived by the many narcotic highs. Many charisma attic people throughout history used this effect to rile the population into a direction in order to overturn more stable, calmer approaches.

In this manner, political party officials generally shape the direction of enthusiasm for specific candidates they are supporting for elections.  Following the crowd makes a person feel as though they belong and the body rewards the person with the stimulation of dopamine and serotonin.  The effect enables those in authority his awarded by the harmonizing response to stimulate capitulation, even if it is with petty rewards (group badges, company buttons, etc.).  The body exaggerates the small offering into a greater sense of inclusion and stimulation.

The effect can be used for creating rioting against the establishment, or by appeasing to the desires of the people’s petty wishes. Rioters and Appeasers are two prevalent personalities within political parties.

BCW-JZ

The political party electoral process forces people to side with who are in opposition of others.  For that simple fact, when people are looking to oppose a candidate, they will gravitate to a group who has more people in opposition, even if they don’t agree with many of the policies that group possesses.  As long as they are against the other candidate, they will struggle with their conscious, siding with the one group only because it opposes the other.

For those who can’t handle the policies of a particular group – people we generally call independent – they find themselves either estranged by those who capitulated to the larger party; or remain uninvolved; or quietly bide their time and existence without strong conviction; or become a singular voice for an alternate direction.

People siding with the lesser of two evils in the two-party process reinforces the two-party system when they choose the larger group that is in opposition of a disliked party.

Leading up to the 1860 election, the Democratic Party fractured into the North and South and a Constitutional Party came into existence.  All this was in opposition to the new Republican Party, having recently evolved from the dismantled Whig Party, the two sides of the Democratic Party coalesced into what we still have by the 2016 election.

Though the 1860 election had 4 political parties involved (Republican, Constitution Union, as well as the Northern and Southern Democratic parties).  The trend towards ‘Us and Them’ distilled opposition to one political party fighting the perceived stronger party, a natural result that resonates today.

Abraham Lincoln of the Republican Party acquired 180 electoral votes in the general election.  Not even combined, did the other parties gain enough electoral votes to upset that decided victory, only having 123 (72, 39 and 12).

Lincoln did gain more popular votes than the next top three individual candidates, having gained well over 1.865 million.  However, combined, the other three top and political parties had 2.818 million of the popular vote, though distributed amongst the three parties.  Events like this fuel the attitude of ‘stealing/siphoning votes away from major parties’ and ‘voting beyond the primary two political parties is a waste of vote.’

As an interesting tidbit, the candidate that only gained 12 electoral points (Northern Democratic Party) had 1.38 million popular votes to his name – well beyond the other two lagging candidates.

Viewing the numbers from one election to the next, people find themselves declaring the triumphant success of the minority overshadowing the majority of the population – yet, later find themselves pounding the table, declaring the minority must bend to the will of greater population.

How does one resolve the two conflictive statements that most every person has declared?  Many proposals have been suggested, though few have been implemented – and there is great resistance from the population to enact change.

Many in support of the electoral process will see this as a victory for the underdog, while others just see it as manipulation of the population.

Most people would agree that the majority should not dictate policy to the minority, yet most people will say one should yield to the opinion of the majority, since a smaller population should not be dictating to the greater population. Both the established political parties have benefited from the electoral process, so those who wish it removed is a true minority.

As for the population shifting sides to a near equilibrium, one must remember that political parties is an accumulation of people and policies, and only a few will agree with most of such policies.  Mostly, people capitulate out of necessity – or become stimulated by the dopamine and serotonin – and will not agree with full policies.  In the dislike or fear of another group of population becoming overly influential, people gravitate to the opposition that has a chance.  Since most will find some qualities on both sides, it is just a matter of deciding which evil is less offensive.

Through the constrictive delegation selection process and manipulation from party leaders, control of political parties over the population continues using the near indecisiveness most people have.  The process requires people to take sides in a fight to declare who is right or wrong.  Those in split parties will cry for unity to oppose the ‘other side.’

To further muddle the problem, the two sides are distilling the process to their way of thinking, continuing a long, drawn-out fight that has been going on for generations.  The process will continue to draw greater numbers of people into the divided debate until there is nothing left of coexistence.

Varying opinions and diversity only muddles the problem more. People demand capitulation to their thinking – citing the need to oppose ‘improper views and behavior,’ in order to bring continuity back to the whole.  This craving to conform the population to their agenda to further their gains creates walls to retain those with ‘proper thinking’ inside the group, while excluding other views and behavior – the quintessential ‘Us and Them’ way of handling local, state and national politics.

To declare their position to the population, people fly the banners of their selected political party, no matter how it forces people to conform to an homogenized way of viewing liberty and freethinking.  This has been becoming more and more prevalent in our contemporary elections, though far from isolated to our time, as shown in the mid-1800s.

BCW-JZ