Prologue: A Blindingly Bright Future
There has been a growing controversy in recent years about the sustained use of the electoral college to nominally elect the president. The symbolism of this tradition has not been without its consequence; the current iteration brings to a national stage, problems of gerrymandering, methodical voter disenfranchisement, and nigh irreversible antagonistic population relations. When only a few states actually decide the vote for the immediate Election, it can be difficult to see what actually matters in an election (both for the ones voting, like a yin deep within a particular state's yang, and for the nominee's platform, pretending to be a yang in a few states of yin).
Every time we see a campaign fought to win Ohio or Pennsylvania, the question really shouldn’t be who happens to collect enough votes to win these historically indecisive states, but if the cracks running through these states (-Cayahoga- v -Jackson, Putnam, Crawford…-, -Philadelphia- v -Jefferson, Bedford, Potter…- ‘Lesser’ New York v ‘Greater’ New York [City v State]) adequately represent the underlying issues that require a vote to be decided, an election that could potentially be the nations victory. If right now the only answers the vote gives us are: (1) ‘My state has a population dense enough to precipitate into a City which thinks itself the main problem’, or (2) ‘My state has not yet developed enough to have such an intriguing City consuming our attention’, then is this really something that needs an election to be asked about (look at it this way, other than States mid-swing and Texas, do we really expect or want more of these cities to develop. Will New York’s vanity allow for these competitors to crop up in the South? Will Los Angeles’ lust leave these Midwestern souls untouched?).
When we distrust the Electoral College, we feel something is wrong with the way we have divided this country. Independent of politics, it’s only natural that a Conservative and Liberal force occupy a country (at least as far as they are so crudely pointed to), they work together to fill out the dimensions of our shared society (The Conservative supports the Liberal Schemes, the Liberal manipulates the Stiffened Conservative), so for what reason have they been so purposefully pitted against each other in the political arena? What is the problem that lies at the heart of our political assumptions?
Scene 2: A Nation Divided to Conquer Itself
Since our government’s inception we have kept the voter intact, by dividing the state, allowing voters to vote freely, but also by leaving the burden of carrying out democratic decisions (in the way they were supposedly intended to be carried out by someone) to representatives (and their representations). But what effect does literally dividing the country like this have on the public consciousness? Weren’t the nations founding children astutely aware that the divisions of the states is what would allow for an imperfect division to persist.
To give temporaneous political shelter to the cowardly dissenting masses (if the politicized individual finds they are not strong enough to stand in the torrents of acidic spit native to such a turbulent political system, then in their haste they may take shelter in a leaky state, the eternal dampness of their spirit will soak them with fear, fear of finally weathering the ill-temperaments outside themselves long enough to gather the materials needed to make an umbrella out of their ideals, out of hope these political junkies wait in their news bunkers for the day that America is over and only they remain, but I did not come here to live in the ground), creating a buffer between the voter and the vote (if what constitutes the state is not the people, but how the people are ordered, then narrowingly the people will believe they have no true means of control over their State [through the use of a wider knowledge] which is thinly controlling everyone [via it’s assumptions] a control that is complete only in its narrowness [That the state is, where the people are not, and the people are all over the place]), allowing for an opinion that detracts from the good of the whole (the removal of ‘Self-Realization’ in the Election).
Scene 3: The Birthplace of Democracy
If we wish to reform the way we vote, from indirect to direct, then we must consider seriously how we would get there. How can we have an election where one candidate runs on invalidating their presidency, and are not elected a paradox (or else tyranny if a candidate were to do this without disclosing what electing them would mean)? Why would a party present a candidate that moves to legitimize referendum politics over party politics (Where the party’s position is not secured by constructing a platformed candidate that wins about half the votes, but by providing an option that wins about half the votes)? Who can we elect that would listen to the people, but isn’t bound to their office? It doesn’t seem likely that the system would pose a question that destroys itself. It is impossible for us to elect something outside of the system.
In the midst of this confusion, other questions cloud our view. Why is immediate power given mainly to the indecisive wholes (Swinging States), and stripped from indecisive individuals (non-partying voters)? Why is indefinite power held by centers of
intellectual production (primarily New York, and California), and why does this power flow down throughout its base (its constituent parts). Why is the infinite potentiality of the voter forced to first reduce itself to a binary question (albeit flagrantly coloured), and then pressed further down into a singular choice along state lines? If the voter is supposed to have any real power, shouldn’t it be direct? The Democratic spirit starts to emerge from these frustrations, but to be cut free from stone, we must ask around it, for it. Why was the voter first tied to the state, and their decision subsumed by the state? Why in the moment of freedom's recognition as absolute, is it immediately linked to humanity's greatest oppressor and enslaver. What is the relation of the free, to their most burdened creation?
If we’re looking for the answers, then it is important we don’t pry with too much reckless scrutiny at the Democracy of America, since it was already known to be what will emerge from a freeing government. To focus solely on whittling away at this fledgling democratic spirit, would only have us chip it, wroughting an imperfection. Instead, we should look to the mold in which it was poured. And why the U.S., was in fact, a Republic.