Where Has the Love Gone? The Future of the American Political Duopoly

 America’s love affair with partisan politics (if there really was one) appears to be over for good. The Democrats, once the harbinger of inclusivity, has found itself mired in mediocrity and lacking in leadership, is able to maintain relevance through Identity politics.  I guess that’s what happens when you run out of ideas and don’t have a very deep bench.

The Republican Party, as a result has benefited, especially in America’s heartland and  in particular, at state and local levels. Yet, its support seems to rest on the last vestiges of a fading demographic white, mostly male, middle class voters, and there is a subtle cold and callous undertone to their call for austerity and “making America great again” by cutting back on social security and the public social safety net but continuing to spend more money on the military than the next ten nations (including China, UK, India, France, and Russia) combined!   

However, neither those who agitate on the Left or Right are satisfied with what their side is offering. The result is an America more deeply and widely divided than at any time since the years proceeding the Civil War.  Some ominously predict a pending revolution while others anticipate a second civil war at any moment, and still others foresee for a “civil divorce”.

Even during our formative years as a nation there were those among our Founding Fathers who questioned whether we were or could ever become a truly “United States” of America. We were fundamentally too different; a multitude of nations.  Over the subsequent decades and centuries, as millions came to our shores, those divisions have only intensified. Regardless, one thing is for sure. This is not the America our Founders intended. So, lets take a look at our political landscape. Perhaps we can even predict an America just a few years or a decade or two down the road.

First, despite the popular belief that America is a “two party” nation, the truth is that it was never established that way. In fact, the majority of the Founders opposed the creation of political parties, fearing that they could become powerful special interest cliques which would in time weaken the political power of the average citizen through deception and corruption and eventually dominate government (nah. That could never happen…could it?).

Secondly, that we’re only limited to just two parties. In fact, we’ve have numerous political parties. Most have either merged with other parties or simply faded away with whatever particular issues they supported. Today, we have two primary parties---Democrat and Republican, although the Libertarian, Green, and Constitutional parties are formable.

 However, despite their public perception of two differing parties, the fact is they’re more similar than not.  For example, they’re both owned by special interests from Wall Street. Wall Street controls the finances of both parties. It funds their campaigns, their leadership PACs, and sets their agenda. It dictates their domestic and foreign policies (which are not overly dissimilar). The corporate media defines their public persona and influences their political message. Both are legal fictions given the rights of the average citizen…and then some.  They are, in fact, a duopoly of Wall Street. Another thing they have in common is that both are actually minority parties.

According to the most recent polling, Independents are the largest political demographic in the United States with just over 43% of all registered voters not aligning with either the Democrats or Republicans. As an aside, did you know that Independents have been the dominate political demographic since 2011? Meanwhile, the two corporate owned parties are roughly equal with 28% each of the electorate making Independents (erroneously called “swing voters” by some) the literal “kingmakers” of today’s politics.

Something else the Democrats and Republicans have in common is that not many people like them. According to a Pew poll, 65% of registered voters, irrespective of registration, disliked Republican polices. 56% felt the same way about Democrat policies.

A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll, showed that 71% of Independents disapproved of the direction the Republican Party was going. 91% of Democrats agreed as did 13% of Republicans (could they be the nefarious “RINOs” so hated by GOP hardliners?).

When it came to Democrats, 64% of Independents disapproved of where the Democratic Party was wanting to take the country. 93% of Republicans concurred. Interestingly, so did 22% of Democrats (those nefarious “DINOs” this time).  In short, an overwhelming majority of Americans disapproved of both Democrat and Republican policies.

Amusingly, in 1960, 4% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans said they’d be unhappy if their son or daughter married someone outside of their party affiliation. In 2019, nearly half---45%---of Democrats said they’d be unhappy if their child married someone from a different party. Republicans were apparently a little more open minded. Just 35% said they would object. Today, I suspect they’d be disowned.

Another factor affecting both parties is that they’re losing their base. Demographics in America are constantly changing. Historically, America has been a predominate white European nation since its founding while blacks were considered the largest minority, As a result, legislation and funding was directed accordingly. But that’s all changing.

Today, whites are still the largest racial demographic at 58.4% (white males, often viewed as America's political, social, and economic “powerbrokers” are projected by the Census Bureau to become a de facto minority by the early 2040's).  The second largest population are Hispanics, who comprise 19.5% of the population (that number would likely be higher if all illegal immigrates were included. However, it's  only as an estimate). Black Americans make up just 13.7% of the population. Asians are 6.4%. Those claiming two or more races make up about 3.1% of the population (and growing). Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and others make up under 2%.

Based on projections, sometime in the next 25 years, America will no longer have a majority racial population. Whites and Hispanics are expected to have a near parity. Black percentages are expected to drop while Asians are anticipated to increase along with the number of those of mixed racial ancestry. So, what does that mean?

Well, for starters, it means that limited federal tax dollars are going to be redirected to the group with the most mouths to feed, and that’s going to be Hispanics. So, expect future federal (and likely state) programs will cater more to Hispanics which could increase competition between blacks and Hispanics for federal dollars.

Secondly, there will be an increase in the number of people of Hispanic ancestry being elected to office at all levels as a result of both a growing population and an increased concentration in key districts or dominate state with high electoral votes. So, don’t be surprised to see a Hispanic president in the next 25 years. Also, although historically, there’s been a decrease in ancestral allegiance over generations, that doesn’t seem to be the case when it comes to Hispanics.

 The reason is that historically, immigration came in waves, thus giving time to integrate into American society, aka the proverbial “melting pot”. Note too, this “absorption” was also encouraged by previous immigrants and society in general as well as newly arriving immigrants had a strong desire to become “Americans” as quickly as possible.

That’s no longer the case. First, the arrival of Hispanic immigrants (legal and illegal) are occurring as such regular rate and volume that there’s little time or opportunity to integrate. Secondly, many have no intention or desire in becoming “Americans”. They are here solely for a payday.  These are economic migrations. As a result, few bother to learn English, the laws, or adopt to customs, values, or traditions. They tend to congregate in their own ethnic enclaves. Many regularly support family back home. Therefore, nearly everything about them remain tied to their native country.

Black Americans have faced a series of serious issues since emancipation which the federal government has attempted to correct through legislation and various taxpayer based programs with varying degrees of success. As federal funding for programs and services are reduced or redirected, along with competition for jobs now being taken by Hispanics, black Americans are going to be forced to struggle harder.

Lastly, the percentage of Asians are growing more rapidly than previously. This is due to the influx of Asians from places like China, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan,  Vietnam, and elsewhere. Another factor is that Asians tend to have large families (as do Hispanics). Thus, in certain areas, especially along the West Coast, Asians could come to represent minority majorities.

This brings us to an interesting question. With Democrats and Republicans shrinking in number, generational dissatisfaction with existing partisan politics (especially among Millennials, Gen Z and facing a declining number of Babyboomers and aging Gen X), what does our political, economic, and social future look like?  Cities, starving for economic  resources, are gobbling up smaller surrounding communities. Corporations are also continuing to gobble up everything they can, thus eliminating or consolidating competition. It already controls the government, and with it, controls funding as well as domestic and foreign policy.

 Technology, especially AI, is already proving to be a double edge sword. It’s provided opportunities for a few while reducing or eliminating jobs thus contributing to the already enormous gulf between the rich and the rest of us. It is also the tool behind our evaporating personal privacy and becoming the ever watchful eye of our emerging surveillance state. It bears mentioning that Millennials and Gen Z, both raised on technology, don’t appear to have the same regard toward privacy as older generations.

As I briefly touched on, the wage/income gap between the elites and the rest of society (which also benefits Congress and others in power) is widening. For instance, did you know that the top 1% control 31% of the nation’s wealth compared to the bottom 50% which controls just 2.6%? From 1979 to 2023, the top 1% saw their wealth grow 182% while the bottom 90% had a growth of 44%. The average CEO makes roughly 334 times that of the average employee.  

Are either of the two corporate owned parties equipped to deal with issues like these over the long term? The Democrats try to maintain power by never saying “no” and kicking the debt can down a short dead end road without a worry about who’s going to pick up the tab. The Republicans hope they can prolong the inevitable by cutting programs affecting the politically weakest and forcing open foreign markets by rook, crook, or rocket. They believe cutting taxes on mega corporations and the wealthy will improve the lot for everyone else.

Neither party are willing or able to make the changes which we need. Besides, it’s not in their vested interests to do so. It’s taken decades crafting the perfect scam. The tune they dance to isn’t the voice of the American voter. It’s sound of vast sums of money played by Wall Street. Corporatism, as under Fascism or Communism, requires a compliant citizenry convinced into surrendering their integrity and wellbeing to a state absent any real accountability, which to me is a lot like an alley cat telling a mouse to “trust me”.  Bon Appetit anybody?

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Political Polarization in the United States

Digging into America’s sour views on both political parties:From the Politics Desk

GOP Holds the Edge in Party Affiliation for Third StraightYear

Wage inequality fell in 2023 amid a strong labor market,bucking long term trends

Corporatism

U.S. Census Bureau: Quick Facts

Partisan Politics drags U.S. towards failed-state status

 

The "Gospel" of Partisan Politics

I am a frequent and often requested respondent on the site "Quora". Over the past 5 or so years, I've had somewhere in the neighbor of 10 million viewers and have my answers included in a number of dedicated spaces which are similar to encyclopedia entries. My specialties are history (especially military history and WWII in particular), economics, theology, humanities, community organizing and activism, management/employee relations, sociology, and of course, politics. 

Recently I was asked a rather unusual political question. The individual wanted to know which of the two corporate controlled parties (the Democrats or the Republicans) considered their particular brand of political dogma to be "gospel", which I took to mean as not based on their professed "ideal", but on their reality. Below is my answer. How would you have answered?  Does either party govern the way they claim to do? 

Which party sees its dogma as political “gospel”? Simple. They both do. That’s why we have such a wide and deep partisan divide. Each believe they know what’s best for the country and the American People. Each has a nearly inflexible political dogma which has lead to intolerance for anyone who isn’t as “pure” as they are. Compromise, which used to be considered the hallmark of modern politics , is now viewed with contempt.

The only thing the two corporate owned parties seem to agree on is their opposition to third parties and Independents (who happen to the nation’s majority voters) because they represent a threat to their control and power. Independence of thought or the development of critical thinking skills are to be discouraged and ridiculed.

Secondly, both agree on pursuing every means of self-enrichment, primarily for the benefit of their controlling corporate clique. It’s not by chance that power doesn’t rest in the hands of the voters, but boardrooms. There’s a reason why we’ve transitioned from a Republic to a corporatocracy and why we’re led by an oligarchy of very wealthy individuals.

As long as we remain divided, we are easier to control and manipulate, which is why both parties have largely purged moderates/centrists for their ranks. It’s why money is “free speech”. It’s why corporations, those legal fictions, have not just the same rights as people, but in many cases, have rights that exceed flesh and blood citizens. So, which party sees its ideology as “gospel”? The answer is that both do, and their gospel was written on Wall Street and their prophets can be found on “K” Street. 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

Who Owns Your Political Party?

 

Some people act as if the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are somehow America’s de facto “official” parties and behave as if they’re an actual part of the government. One senses that to contradict that is somehow unpatriotic. The plain truth of the matter is that they are private corporations. Their internal party leadership, which these days are primarily the large corporate donors, determine the party platform which the elected candidates follow (note that each party pays for its own caucus).  

However, these days the two parties have come together to form a de facto duopoly under the direction and control of a relatively handful of deep pocket investors. For instance, did you know that in 2024, just 1.05% of U,S, population made 78.45% of all political contributions?

Most of that money isn’t coming from individuals like Koch, Soros, or even Musk. It’s coming from people with names like Yass, Adelson, Uihlien, Mellon, and Griffin. People that most of us have never heard of but with very deep pockets and all of whom having a very specific agenda. It's also coming from well financed political action committees, professional associations, financial fund managers, and corporate donors. Nevertheless, despite being literally “owned” by Wall Street, both parties receive taxpayer subsidies.

Yelp, you read that right. Despite receiving billions from Wall Street, both parties also receive money from taxpayers, irrespective of their political registration, in order to support their primaries. Can you imagine that? If you’re an Independent, like the majority of American voters, or a member of a third party like the Greens, Libertarians, or Constitutionalists, you still are compelled to pay for the Republican and Democrat partisan primary!

So, if you aren’t a member of either party, what do you care about who wins their primary? Well, the fact of the matter is that you likely don’t, and yet your tax dollars are involuntarily taken from you and given to them. To add insult to injury, none of the third parties (and certainly none of the Independent candidates) get a penny in taxpayer subsidies. In fact, they receive little or no money of any consequence from deep pocket corporate donors.

So, before we talk about how much money the two corporate owned parties get from deep pocket donors, let’s talk about Citizens United, the 2010 mistake by the Supreme Court which gave corporations “personhood” and declared that money was “free speech”, except that Big Business was entitled to now openly and freely give what they want while the average citizen was effectively locked out of politics.

As I said, Citizens United occurred in 2010 (Citizens United vs. FEC). Before that, corporations and their political action committees (“PACs”) had to go through a series of Byzantine steps to donate to candidates and parties, and even then, they were restricted in what they could donate. In fact, unions could keep up with most corporations. It was still possible of the average citizen to make a difference financially in elections, especially at the local and state levels.

Of course, the federal level was another matter. Even then, in pre-2010, Congress was largely a “Millionaire’s Club”, and if your weren’t going in, there was a pretty good chance you would be long before you retired. In 2008 for instance, the average cost of running for a seat in the House of Representatives was $1.73 million dollars while a Senate seat might cost you $8.53 million. Fast forward to 2012, just two years after Citizens United went into effect, that House seat would cost you an average of $1.57 million dollars, and that Senate seat would set you back a hefty $11.47 million.

By 2018, you were going to pay over $2 million for a seat in the House and $15.75 million for that Senate seat. In 2022, you’d pay an average of $2.79 million dollars for a job that paid about 170,000 a year. That Senate seat, which paid the same as the House, would cost you $26.53 million dollars. Prior to 2010, corporations and unions gave almost the same amount. Nowadays, it’s a 10:1 ratio in favor of Wall Street.

By the end of the 2022 election cycle, the average winner (which were nearly all incumbents) spent $26.5 million for the Senate seat and $2.8 million for their House seat. As an aside, the average loser for a House seat spent $803,773 while in the Senate, the average loser dropped $13,518,918.

Of course, winner or loser, most of this money was coming from Corporate America and you can bet they weren’t just trying to be “good” or “responsible” corporate citizens. This was investment dollars, and with all investments, you expect to get something back for your money.

So, if both parties---the Democrats and Republicans---are private corporations, and if they are funded by Wall Street, why are taxpayers required to help underwrite their primaries through their tax dollars? Lets look at this question another way. Taxpayer funding of primaries are the result of legislation at the state level. Who makes up state legislatures? Despite, being minority parties, most legislatures are comprised of Democrats and Republicans.

How is it then, with both parties being the minority (Democrats make up about 27% of all registered voters nationally while Republicans make up about 26%). Independents, however, comprise about 43%. In addition, the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has been dropping for years while the number of “Indies” has been booming.

Thanks to having a rigged electoral system (which if freely admitted by both parties), they are about to make it very difficult for any third party or non-partisan candidate to get on the ballot. First, partisan candidates typically need only three to five signatures to get on the ballot whereas third party candidates may need ten times that amount for the same office.

In some cases, they may be required to hundreds or thousands of signatures by petition, and you can bet that both parties will work together to eliminate as many of those signatures as being “invalid” as possible (often waiting as close to the filing deadline as possible to prevent them from getting additional signatures).

In Indiana for instance, an Independent needs to get 36,944 signatures to get on the ballot for a statewide election. In Texas, a third party candidate needs 81,000 signatures gathered over a 75 day period. In New York, it’s 45,000. Partisan candidates, however, generally only need three to five signatures. 

This is often called the "2% rule" where candidates other than a Democrat or Republican must get 2% of registered voters to sign a petition just to get on the ballot. Bear in mind too that only the two parties get automatic ballot access. Free and fair elections? Hardly.

Partisan gerrymandering of districts (which the Supreme Court has refused to rule on) is another way to keep voters from being represented. Districts are aligned to ensure that the presiding party will keep registered voters from that party in the majority in that district. The result is that 97% of incumbents are automatically reelected.

Lastly, money. No campaign can be run without money, and lots of it. Since both parties are in bed with Wall Street and some very wealthy donors, very little money goes to anyone else aside from the pre-approved partisan candidates. Of course, the corporate owned media does its party to ignore or belittle any third party or Indie candidate, treating them as if they were a sideshow amid claims of “wasting your vote” or “throwing away your vote”.

In addition, both state parties ensure that their party’s primary remains closed. That is, unless you’re a member of their clique, you can’t play in their sandbox. However, since the legislation doesn’t allow for any distinction between being a partisan voter or not, everyone is taxed equally to fund their sandbox.

So, that means that in the 13 states and the District of Columbia with closed primaries (which includes Kentucky, Florida, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania), some 23.5 million Independents voters and approximately 5.3 million third party voters were not just denied the opportunity to vote, they were forced to pay for those closed partisan primaries thanks to partisan legislation. Sound fair? Remember, that the American Revolution came about over the issue of “taxation without representation”.

It was that fact that the British Parliament was voting on matters without our input and then forcing us to pay for those decisions, again without our approval. Here we have partisan political primaries being conducted by two private corporations, and thanks to legislation passed by partisan legislators which also excluded voters in general, required everyone (to pay for their insider elections yet denying a large segment of voters the opportunity to participate in them!

It would be like two cliques from high school throwing a party that you’re not invited to, but you have to pay for it!  I think this would qualify as “taxation without representation” just as well, don’t you? Our Founding Fathers (who frowned on political parties to begin with) would be up in arms. As an aside, the pre-revolutionary “Sons of Liberty” were well known for tar and feathering tax collectors and others for doing less, not to mention hanging many an official of the Crown in effigy from Boston Common’s “Liberty Tree”.

So, where does that leave us? Interestingly, this demonstrates that we have a duopoly which does not represent the majority of Americans. Not even close. In order to maintain control, it’s necessary to rig the system to ensure that they and only they retain power. That means that each party caters to the extreme wings of their party, which is responsible, at least in part, to the great divide we are experiencing in this country while at the same time brainwashing us into believing they’re trying bridge that divide.

They force, through legislation, citizens to financially support them, giving the impression of popular support. They gerrymander districts to give themselves a near perpetual hold on districts. The absence of term limits allows them to hold office for as long as they want while corporate control over campaign finances virtually guarantees that there’s no serious challenge to the status quo while the media, pretending to be unbiased, ignores or ridicules anyone who has the audacity to resist or demand choice.  Kool-Aide anyone? 

In truth, neither Independents nor third party members actually want to participate in partisan primary elections. The fact they are Independent or member of a third party demonstrates that! What they want is either equal voting access if they’re to be taxed or not taxed and allowed to support their own candidates or party.  Ideally, each party should be fully responsible for funding their own primaries instead state legislatures effectively putting a gun to the head of voters and telling them we have “free and open elections”.   

Nether the Republican Party or the Democratic Party are the “official” parties of the United States. They are merely two of many, and they’re both minority parties at that! They do not have the right to prohibit people from voting or ballot access any more than they have the right to mandate support of their primary unless all primaries are equally supported, at least in my opinion. 

Campaign finance reform, term limits, rank choice voting, equal ballot access, non-partisan gerrymandering and nationwide citizen referendums are seriously required if we’re to have a mediocrem of freedom left for ourselves and future generations. If America is to reclaim the title of "Beacon of Freedom", wouldn't you think we should start with our own electoral process first?    

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Election Trends

Corporatism

Taxpayer Funding: The Cost of Closed Primaries

Closed Primary States 2025

Closed Primary

Research Brief: Growing Cohort of Independent Voters BecomesCritical Segment of Electorate

Voters Who Identify As Independent Skyrockets As Democrats and Republicans Dwindle

How US states make it tough for third parties in elections

10 Ways to Fight the Corporatocracy

What Would Our Founding Fathers Think of Us Today?

What do you think our Founding Fathers would think about today’s political situation?  Did you know political parties weren’t around during the founding of our nation? They first arose in the United States in the early 1800’s. At the time we had the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties which were based mainly on the notion of federalism and anti-federalism.

Those two concepts were political philosophies and centered on whether you believed in a large, mostly centralized, government with states having relatively weak authority or a small and primarily decentralized government with most of the power and taxing authority based in the individual states.  Federalist preferred the former and anti-federalist the latter.

Key federalists included individuals like Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Madison (George Washington is sometimes lumped in with federalists). Anti-federalists included people like Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, and George Mason.

Federalists were strict constitutionalists. Their base of support was centered mainly in urban centers and among larger types of businesses. They also supported commercial trade and renewed diplomatic relations with the British. Anti-federalist on the other hand, backed the Articles of Confederation. Much of their support came from rural areas and farmers.

Federalists tended to downplay or oppose the Bill of Rights whereas Anti-federalists strongly supported the Bill of Rights.  It was from these two groups that partisan political parties would later form.  The two parties would split into the Democratic and Whig parties by the 1820’s.

I should mention at this point that many of the early Founding Fathers opposed the notion of partisan political groups. In fact, in 1787, when they gathered in Philadelphia to hash out what would become our new government, political parties weren’t even mentioned. Why?

Because they had witnessed firsthand the destructive power political parties (or “factions” as they called them) could bring. Factions had nearly torn England apart in the form of civil wars and would do the same to France and elsewhere within their lifetimes in many cases.

George Washington, who opposed political parties, knew that his family was forced to flee England because of these partisan civil wars. Thomas Paine, the author of “Common Sense” and “The Rights of Man”, though these “factions” could destroy the nation or at the very least, make ordinary citizens vulnerable to the power of the wealthy elites.

When Washington left office in 1796, he warned the country of the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address (not unlike President Eisenhower did in his 1960 Farwell Address). He warned of the dangers these “factions” would have on democracy when he said, “The common and continued mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it”.  

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, said that political parties were the “most fatal of diseases” of a popular government. James Madison wrote in Federalist #10, that one of the duties of a “well-constructed union” should be to manage the “tendency to break and control the violence of faction”. In other words, to keep “factions” or political parties from becoming to powerful.

Several of the Founders saw these “factions” as dangerous.  They would ultimately divide and strip citizens of their political influence leaving a handful of monied elites controlling the political system. What the Founders had hoped to do was to create a new system of government based on the concept of the “citizen legislator”. The last thing they wanted was a professional political class.

Nevertheless, political “factions” happened anyway. Apparently, we weren’t the “wise people” Washington had hoped we would be. By 1860, the two party “winner-take-all” system was firmly entrenched. Corporate influence was even then making itself felt. President Ulysses Grant’s administration in the 1870s was known for its corruption, mainly by banks, financiers, and railroad barons.

Corporate control peaked in 1896 when the robber barons, men like Rockefeller, Hearst, Fisk, Gould, Vanderbilt, and Mellon, brazenly “bought” the presidency for William McKinley, defeating reformer William Jennings Bryan. Ultimately their clout would be dismantled by President “Teddy” Roosevelt following McKinley’s assassination in 1901.  

Wounded though they be it, it was far from dead. By the 1920’s they were back in business, and they’ve never looked back, playing one political party off the other and using shell organizations and “straw men” to influence elections, laws, and policies.

They received a lot of corporate and union money, which was used to buy influence for certain pieces of legislation, direct government contracts their way, or impact policies, voters and communities could still count on their legislators. Party delegates had a say in establishing the party’s platform at conventions (with some having more clout than others) while locally political bosses, such as Tammany Hall, controlled state politics and graft.  

The 2010 “Citizens United v FEC” ruling by the Supreme Court changed all that. The ruling (or more accurately, “mistake”) gave corporations “personhood”. That is, these artificial legal fictions now had the same rights as any ordinary human being, but with one key difference.

The court decided that money was now the same thing as free speech. However, while you and I are capped in the amount of “free speech” we could give, corporations weren’t, and they could give millions. If fact, they could literally buy elections out in the open, they made the impact of ordinary voters almost worthless just as our Founders had warned. Wall Street, not the membership, established the party platform.

As an aside, it isn’t only money politicians receive from deep pocket corporations and the well-heeled. Corporate lobbyists also review bills and make recommendations on how to vote (at least to committee chairs and the party whip). They even help write (or actually write) legislation and chaperone them through the maze of committees. They write news releases and speeches, provide some very expensive junkets, and arranged for some very well paying speaking engagements ($2000 per speech isn’t uncommon).

Corporate influence extended to the media and how politics are reported too. Elections were no longer just reported with commentators making subtle innuendos one way or another. Now, with just six corporations controlling 96%+ of all media, they could be as open as they liked.

Instead of merely reporting the news as the media  had once done, buyouts and consolidations gave corporations unprecedented influence over what the public read, heard, and saw. Now they could manufacture the news and slant it however they wanted.

But that’s not the worst of it. With unlimited financial support, Congress has been to virtually isolated itself from voters (and thus, responsibility for their actions) when you consider that the absence of term limits an almost unlimited tenure in office (something many of the Founders opposed) with a 95% reelection percentage despite an approval rating consistently in the teens.

 Founding Father George Mason was a vocal proponent for “rotations” (as term limits were called then), referring to unrestricted terms in a democracy as “oppression”. In fact, term limits had originally been apart of the Articles Confederation, keeping them to no more than three terms over a six year period. 

The thinking was that legislators who weren't restricted by term limits were prone to become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption” as stated by anti-federalist, lawyer, merchant, and delegate to the Continental Congress, Melancton Smith in 1789.

In addition, partisan gerrymandering ensures that the party in control of the district stays in control of the district although gerrymandering itself was intended to give Congress a ”reflection” of the voter demographic for that area. As a result, partisan gerrymandering allows Congress to select its constituents instead of constituents selecting their representative.  

In fact, in 1891, President Benjamin Harrison called partisan gerrymandering “political robbery”. He went on to say that its “overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage represented our chief national danger”.  Partisan gerrymandering represents a de facto “taxation with representation” no different than our “winner-take-all” system where voters on the losing side remained taxed without the benefit of being represented in office.

Even running for office is rigged. Shouldn't that, at least, be open to everyone equally? The nation’s largest political demographic, Independents, as well as third parties are required to jump through hoops the two minority parties---the Democrats and Republicans---don’t have to. Should this be legal? Probably not. Even public referendums, the right of voters to have a direct say, are prohibited in half of all states.

Such is the state of our partisan controlled political system. What would our Founder’s think of their little experiment? Bear in mind that our Founders weren’t entirely as benevolent as we were taught in high school. There were the elites of their day or that they feared direct democracy or “mob rule” as they called it, preferring that the citizenry elect their “betters” to govern the country which is how we arrived at a Republic instead of a democracy.  

And you dear reader, what do you think of our current political situation? Do you approve of corporate control of Congress, the Presidency, and the Judicial system? What about unlimited terms of office or partisan control of districts to ensure their complete control by one party or the other? What do you think about our “winner-take-all” system where if your side loses, you aren't represented for the duration of the term, but you still get taxed? Sound fair? 

Finally, shouldn’t the pollical playing field be level in order to allow everyone equal ballot access?  In the end, regardless of what the media or anyone tells you, it is us---the voters---who still have the final say about our nation….at least for now.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tearthe Nation Apart

First Party System

James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship

 

Political Parties

 

How Big Money in Politics Bought a Presidential Election in1896

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

History Frowns on Partisan Gerrymandering

Members of Congress Get What!?

A Promise From the Founder

Has the Season of MAGA Finally Arrived? Democrats Struggle for Relevance

Few doubted Donald Trump would win a second term as president. After incumbent President Joe Biden was forced aside due to supposed mental issues, all the Democrats were left with was Vice president Kamala Harris, and few thought she had any chance whatsoever in derailing the MAGA juggernaut, even with the not-so-subtle help of the so-called “impartial” mainstream media.

As Vice President and heir apparent to the Oval Office, Kamala accomplished little, although she did achieve the distinction of having the lowest approval rating of a Vice President for all four years of any party in recent history. So, I guess that’s at least something. Even the Republican Status Quo didn’t bother challenging “The Donald” with a primary.  There’s no question, the “Season of MAGA” is upon us.

During his first 50 days, President Trump signed over 70 executive orders (a record number by the way). He’s empowered billionaire Elon Musk to head the Department of Government Efficiency (aka “DOGE”) to root out government waste and inefficiency wherever it could be found.

 In the process, thousands of government employees have been let go, funding of USAID and other programs have been dramatically cut. Now, DOGE is threatening Social Security and Medicare in it’s hunt for waste and fraud. Already it’s found millions in waste, including checks going to individuals long dead.  But many are beginning to wonder if DOGE will reach too far in its zealous search.  

Tariffs have been implemented against Mexico, China, and Canada in order to level the global economic trading field. Of course, they’ve responded in kind. Now it’s a matter of who will blink first (hint: Canada appears to be first out).  In addition, President Trump, in keeping with his promise of eliminating illegal immigration, has begun widespread round up and deportation of thousands of individuals here illegally.

Trump is also planning on cutting federal funding to all “sanctuary cities” as well. And if that wasn’t enough, he’s even ordered that the name of Gulf of Mexico be changed. It will now be known as the “Gulf of America” to reflect our rediscovered “greatness”. Needless to say, Mexico and most of Latin America isn’t too keen on the name change.

Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, was the early bird to Washington, hat in hand, and wanting to be one of the first to ask for billions more of taxpayer money to continue the war with Russia. For Zelensky, it was a diplomatic and media disaster.

The Ukrainian president was publicly heavily chastised by President Trump for not having at least a proposal to stop hostilities rather than just perpetuating a war that’s lasted three years all ready and cost thousands of lives and billions in damage. Russia’s president, Vladmir Putin, has already made peace overtures which were all but ignored by Zelensky. NATO, of course, threw a fit and has promised to continue military aid to Ukraine, which itself can ill afford (or worse, to keep poking the Russian bear until it bites back).

So, what about the Democrats? They fared poorly in the election all the way around.  In today’s hyper partisan political world, it goes without saying that whatever the other side does, the opposing party is against. It could be a cure for cancer and some partisan faction would find a reason to complain about it.

Case in point, at President Trump’s recent Congressional address on March 4th, he introduced a young man (about 13 years old) by the name of “DJ” Daniel, who has been fighting a lifelong battle with a cancerous brain tumor. This young man has always wanted to be in law enforcement. Knowing that to be unlikely given his condition (in 2018, doctors told Daniel’s family that DJ had roughly five months to live), he started collecting police and other law enforcement badges.  

Along the way, he’s been made an honorary officer some 50 times (including an honorary FBI “Special Agent”). During the speech, DJ was introduced and received a rousing applause from everyone, well, except the Democrats in attendance. They sat on their hands and totally ignored the brave young 13 year old cancer survivor.

Even when he was made an honorary Secret Service agent by the director of the Secret Service himself, Sean Curran, there was crickets coming from the Democrat side of the aisle. What gives? Has partisan hatred (and I do mean “hatred”) gone so far as to take it out on some little kid? Well, the public noticed in a big way.

Democrats were overwhelmed with negative letters, especially coming from their own side, chastising them over their disrespect of DJ. Even Democratic rank and file members, in a rare instance of courage, went after their party leaders for not allowing them some leeway to respond during the speech.

For anyone who watched the address, all they saw from the Democrats was them holding up signs calling Trump names, making accusations, and playing video games, while a few got up and walked out. One, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) stood up and tried to shout over the president and heckle him, was thrown out. The end result was a political party in disarray and at each other’s throats.

 That’s not how you win back the American People, and in case you have any doubts, an NBC News poll released on March 17^th found just 7% of those polled have a “very favorable” opinion of Democratic Party and just 27% had a “favorable” opinion! To put it another way, 66% of respondents had a negative opinion of the Democratic Party.  That’s the lowest favorability numbers since 1990.

A CNN poll, conducted March 6 -9, showed similar results. Reflecting a new low for the Democrats, the poll showed a favorability rating of 29% among Democrats and liberal leaning Independents. 54% said they had an unfavorable opinion of the Democrats.

In comparison, the low point for the Republicans was in September 2017 during Trump’s first term when the GOP hit an all time low of 62% (their approval rating was 29%) with the rest having no opinion.

Also, according to the CNN poll, 57% of Democrats and liberal leaning Independents surveyed said they wanted the Democrats to oppose the current Trump agenda. Just 42% said they want the Democrats to try and work with Republican lawmakers.

Contrast those numbers with a September 2017 poll and Trump’s first term when 74% of Democrats and liberal leaning Independents wanted Congressional Democrats to work with Trump while only 23% said they wanted Democrats to stop the Trump White House. As for current Republican favorability among the GOP faithful and conservative leaning Independents,  the Republican Party was standing at 48%.

A CNN/SSRS poll from March 18^th show that voters in general had a low opinion of both corporate owned parties in general with neither polling over a 20% approval rating. This is especially true of the nation’s largest voting bloc, Independents.

Republicans and conservatives gave themselves an 80% approval rating whereas just 63% of Democrats and those who lean liberal could say the same thing about the Democrat Party. The majority of Democrats and those who lean liberal---52%---said the biggest issues with the party is a lack of leadership.

Among Independents, the Democrats have a 19% approval rating while the GOP’s approval rating is a paltry 20%. In our current “winner-take-all” system, 90% of all elections, including Congressional races, are safe for one party or the other, meaning that the losing side forgoes any real representation for the duration of the office term (of course, despite a lack of representation, you can bet that the tax bills keep rolling in).

A February 13^th Gallup Poll showed that 45% of liberal leaning Independents and Democrats alike say the Democratic Party needs to adopt a more moderate or centrist course. 29% would like to take the party even further Left.  Just 22% wants to stay the course.

In dropping back to 2021, 31% of Democrats and progressive Independents wanted to stay the course. However, it was a tie at 34% each between those who wanted a shift further to the Left and those who wanted a more moderate approach.

In looking at conservative leaning Independents and party Republicans, 43% are happy where the party currently is. 28% would like to take the GOP further to the Right whereas 27% would prefer that the Republican Party tone it down a bit.

With Republican and conservative leaning Independents, 40% in 2021 want to see the GOP get even more conservative. 34% were happy where they were, but 24% thought the party should dial it back a few notches. Among all groups, each wanted theirs to take the lead with moderates wanting more moderation, liberals wanting to be more liberal, and conservatives wanting to be even more conservative.

So, where does this leave us? President Trump has hit the ground running full tilt, much to the delight of his MAGA supporters while the Democrats are still suffering from election shell shock. They have yet to come up with an effective massage to counter Trump, primarily because their leadership is completely out of touch with the American People.

Meanwhile, the nation’s largest voting bloc---Independents---have had enough of the extreme partisanship of both corporate controlled parties. Remember that both the Democrats and the Republican constituted minority parties, which reflects why both are struggling with the American voter.

 Until one or the other party can tap into the large centrist bloc, this national divide will only continue to worsen. Perhaps now, more than ever, it’s time for a third party. 58% of Americans agree.

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 

Trump makes 13-year-old cancer survivor  a Secret Service agent during speech to Congress

Polls Show Democrats Losing Popularity, Yet Making 2026Gains

CNN Poll: Only 19% of Independents View Democrats Favorablyand Don’t Think Much Better of Republicans

More Democrats Favor Party Moderation Than in the Past

Gallup: Support for Third Party Dips Slightly: Still Close to60%

 

 

 

Our Election Day PSA to Voters Everywhere

 

Our Election Day "PSA" to Voters Everywhere:

The role of the media should be to provide accurate and balanced news so that we can make informed decisions. That means the news media needs to be non-partisan in their reporting. At election time the media (particularly newspapers) like to make their endorsements and urge you---the voter---support their agenda. Their agendas don't necessarily represent our best interest best interest. Do your own research and vote your conscience. Don't vote to be "anti" anything. We don't need any more negativity in the world. Instead, make your vote count "for" something you truly believe in. Thank you, AnotherOpinionblog.com

Who Votes in America? A Snapshot of the Average American Voter

It's ironic that nearly every election is billed as the "most important" to our democracy, and yet voter turnout in the United States is among the lowest of any democracy. I remember when I first ran for a seat on our newly created Metro Council, voter turnout in my district was between 5% and 7%. You would think there would be more interest for electing representatives to a newly created local metro government council (we had just merged city and county governments), but nope!

Other democracies have a far greater percentage of voter turnout that we do (we're ranked 31st in the world). For many people it means trudging on foot for miles enduring all kinds of terrain and weather, through dangerous areas controlled by drug cartels, terrorists, corrupt police and military troops, all trying to intimidate voters. But Americans, it seems we will stay home at the drop of a hat. Any ole excuse will do. Is it that we just don't care anymore? Who does show up to vote? Let's look at the numbers.

Voter turnout in the United States in the 2020 presidential election was 66.1%. Of the eligible 240 million voters, 158,427,986 bothered to show up (and of that, an estimated 5% of the votes were cast by illegal immigrants).  Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington State and Oregon had the highest percentage of turnout with 75% or better of eligible voters showing up at the polls. Hawaii, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Missouri, and West Virginia had the lowest turnout---under 55%---of registered voters.

Historically, voter turnout for presidential elections has been in the neighborhood of 55%. The lowest turnout since 1932 was in 1996 when just 49% of the voting age population showed up to decide between between Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and Ross Perot. Clinton won with 49% of the vote, Dole received 40.7% and Ross Perot got 8.4%.

As an aside, the lowest voter turnout in U.S. history was the 1792 presidential election between George Washington (seeking a second term) and John Adams.  The turnout was just 6.3% (or 28,000 voters out of a population of 3,919,023). Of course, there were only 15 states back then. Apparently being "Father of the Country" didn't count for much.

Women weren't allowed to vote until 1920, following the passage of the 19th Amendment and the hard work of suffragettes. The last state to approve the amendment was Tennessee on August 18, 1920 (incidentally, my great grandmother was one of those suffragettes. She lived in Nashville). 

The highest voter turnout at the polls was in 1876 when 82.6% of eligible voters showed up to vote for Rutherford Hayes or Samuel Tilden. This was one of the earliest elections to allow former slaves to vote following the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870.

Although America has had a wide variety of political parties since 1790, the two main parties nowadays are the Republicans and Democrats, although there are several strong third parties which include the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party (according to a October 4, 2023 Gallup report, support for third parties is up 63%, the highest increase since 2003).

Nevertheless, both of the two major parties have been hemorrhaging voters, especially since the Supreme Court upheld the "Citizens United" ruling in 2010 which effectively gave over control of the U.S. political system to corporations by declaring they had  "personhood" and basic civil rights. It also declared money was  "free speech",  and without a cap on donations, they could give what they wanted. That meant the few would have more "free speech" than the many.  

For about the last 10 or so years, voters have shifted away from the growing extremism of either corporate owned party and becoming Independents or joining third parties. Today, registered Independents make up about 41% of all registered voters with the Democrats and Republicans comprising 28% and 31% respectively (Independents were as high as 51% in June 2024).

There are currently 244 million eligible voters in the U.S.. Of that, there are 168.31 million registered voters. As we said above, the majority of voters are registered as Independent, followed by Republican and Democrat. When it comes to gender, women tend to vote more often than men. In fact, according to the Center for American Women and Politics, there were 7.4 million more female voters in 2022 than men. To rephrase it, 68.4% of registered women voted compared to 65% of men.

According to a Pew survey, in 2020 48% of registered male voters who showed up voted Democrat compared to 55% of females. 50% of registered Republican males voted while 44% of Republican women did. In 2022, a presidential off year, 44% of male Democrats voted as did 51% of Democratic women. So, in both instances, Republican males showed up more than Democratic males. Among females, the opposite was true.  More female Democrats voted than Republicans.

The survey left out the political majority---Independents (does that subtlety imply a measure of partisanship I wonder?), which is interesting given that Independents made up over a quarter of all voters who showed up at the polls in 2020. Independents tend to lean conservative when it comes to the economy and taxes and lean liberal on most social issues. Independents are, to frame them, typically moderates. They oppose the extremism of the prevailing duopoly.

 When it comes to voting, Independents look at individual candidates and their positions on specific issues compared to their partisan counterparts who tend to vote along party lines (even if it means holding their noses to do so). For instance, in 2022 Democrats voted for Democratic candidates 96% of the time with just 3% refusing to walk in lockstep.

It wasn't any different among Republicans which had the same percentages. Independents, however, tilted more for Biden in 2020 than Trump (54% to 41%) because of the latter's perceived unpredictability and the extremism of the Republican Party. In 1994, more Independents backed President Bush than Bill Clinton by 18 points because he was a unknown factor with a questionable past.

What does this mean? In 2022, 74% of voters disapproved of how Biden was handling (or mishandling as the case may be) of the economy. Given the lockstep mentality of both parties, and their near dead heat in voter registration, it will be the Independents who may decide the 2024 election and do so into the future. The question is which, if any, of the two corporate owned parties can pull in the Independent voter? Independents are political "free agents" and the Democrats and Republicans aren't the only game anymore.

According to a CNN poll, Democratic voters between ages 18 and 29 and 30 to 39 turned out in heavy percentages---63% and 51% respectively---then the percentages drop off significantly to the mid and lower 40% range.  Among Republicans, the inverse was true. The percentages for the same age brackets were 35% and 47%. Ages 40 and older saw the numbers jump to about 55%.

Married Republicans voted 58% of time compared to 39% who are single. For Democrats, just 41% of married couples voted. But if you're single, that percentage jumps to 59%! So, in looking at these two sets of statistics provided by CNN, young single Democrats are more likely than not to show up at the polls. On the other hand, older married Republicans are most likely to be dedicated voters.

Looking backward, although the historical affiliation among the youth vote has been Democrat, it has been by decreasing margins coming forward. If Pew had included Independents, the data would have shown that the general trend among the youth in both parties are deserting the two corporate parties in droves and becoming Independent. As an aside, almost 50/50% favor some form libertarianism  or type of social democracy. Support for traditional capitalism is also in decline.

When it comes to race, 92% of Black voters voted for Democrat in 2020 compared 8% who voted Republican. In 2022, 93% voted Democrat while 5% backed the GOP. In looking at the 2020 white vote, 43% went Democrat in contrast to 55% who voted Republicans. in 2022, 41% of white voters voted Democrat while 57% went Republican.

Hispanics, who are now the second largest population in the U.S., voted 61% Democrat in 2020. 36% backed Republicans (most were of Cuban descent). Those number changed slightly in 2022 when 60% voted Democrat and 39% when Republican. Asians weren't much different. 70% voted Democrat in 2020 compared to 30% Republican. 2022 saw 68% going Democrat and 32% voting Republican.

If we look at race and gender,  60% of white males voted Republican in 2022. 38% voted Democrat. Among white females, 55% voted for the GOP in 2022 while 44% sided with the Democrats. Among Black males, 93% backed Democrats while just 6% supported the Republican Party. Black women were nearly identical with the male counterparts. 93% went Democrat and 5% back Republicans.

Among Hispanic males in 2022, 43% sided with Republicans. 56% back the Democratic Party (one reason may be for the perceived leniency toward illegal immigration and less willingness to deport compare to the Republicans). It appears that 64% of Hispanic females agree. 34% side with the Republicans. Unfortunately, there was no data for Asians.

 In the 2022 election, individuals with a high school or less level of education leaned Republican by a margin of 59% to 39%. Those with an associate degree favored the GOP by 54% to 44%. However, those with a four year degree favored Democrats to Republicans, albeit narrowly, 51% to 48%. For those with a Master's degree or better, 61% voted Democrat versus 37% went for the Republicans.

Does this mean that the more educated you are the more liberal you become or is it the longer exposure to a liberal infused education? Higher education is supposed to be about encouraging critical thinking skills and enhancing the ability to reason rationally and without bias based on facts right? But what if the "facts" are tainted?  A 2023 study showed that 26% of professors considered themselves conservative while 17% said they were moderate. But, 50% admitted they were liberal.  

When it comes to income, more lower income families are registered Democrat than Republican, and they're also more likely to vote. 58% compared to 36%. Among upper middle class voters, 52% will turn out for Republicans compared to 46% for Democrats. Meanwhile, the very wealthy actually show up for Democrats over the Republicans 53% to 46%. It appears that the average Republican voter is someone with a lower middle to upper middle class (the very class which is decreasing the rapidest).

As an aside, union members are more likely to be registered Democrat (59%) than Republican (39%) although the Democratic Party depends on corporate dollars. Among non-union voters, it's almost a even split with 48% Democrat and 49% Republican. Most renters are Democrat compared to Republican (64% to 32%) whereas most homeowners vote Republican (51%) as opposed to Democrat (45%).

When it comes to military service, 63% of veterans vote Republican while 51% of non-military tend toward the Democrats. 72% of white veterans lean Republican but 82% of Black veterans are Democrat. Similar numbers hold true for those who attend church regularly. The majority of white churchgoers---59%---tend to vote Republican while Black churchgoers vote Democrat in near equal numbers.  

So, there you have a snapshot of the average American voter. Women are more likely than men to show up at the polls to vote. The older the voter, the more likely they'll vote. Higher education doesn't equate to more conservative voting. Those with a high school (or trade school degree) are more likely to turn out to vote than someone with bachelor or higher degree.

Among race, whites and Hispanics are more likely to vote than Asians or Blacks. The excuses varied. It could range from getting away to vote, a lack of convenient transportation, no ID or simply a lack of interest. Ultimately, the missing factor appears to be a lack of motivation to show up. But regardless, the result is the same. No vote no voice no b*tching.

The voters of 2024 won't be much different from the voters of 2022, except that turnout will likely be higher. Right now the polling numbers show a virtual dead heat. Will it be who can get their side out in numbers that stands the best chance of winning? Is it who can swing the Independent vote that will win? Personally, I think Joseph Stalin had it right when he allegedly said "those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything", but then that's a problem we've been experiencing with greater frequency isn't it  

 

Thank you for reading Another Opinion! We hope you enjoyed this article and will pass it along. Please don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly, please "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Please find below the links we consulted in researching this article. 

 

Voting Patterns in the 2022 Elections

Voter turnout in United States presidential elections

Gallup: Party Affiliation Week of October 1, 2024

Citizens United vs. FEC

Women's Suffrage in the United States

Gender Differences in Voter Turnout

Independent Voters Have the Final, and Future, Say

Conservative Faculty are Outliers on Campus Today

Partisanship by family income, home ownership, unionmembership, and veteran status

Most White Americans who regularly attend worship servicesvoted for Trump in 2020

Turnout in U.S. has soured in recent elections but by somemeasures trails that of many other countries

Support for Third U.S. Political Party Up to 63%