One Story the Media Ignores Completely

Voting is suppose to guarantee you are “represented.” So, if you are over 18 and a citizen you can vote. But, why is being “represented” limited to 18 and a citizen?

Ever pause and wonder if there might be a connection between this limited definition of “represented” and why our political system seems so dysfunctional? Or, why it feels like the country is going in the wrong direction?

If so, the answer you probably came up with for both questions is — the influence of money and politicians looking out for themselves more than the country.

And, you would be partly right.

Money in politics has always been corrosive and destructive. And, of course, today’s political and campaign rhetoric has become focus-group tested babel.

Verbal sound-bites deliberately designed to assure you and assuage concerns, yet vague enough to defy any genuine commitment and accountability. In other words, facts and truth are morph into truthiness.

But this is just the visible surface of the problem. The biggest, most fundamental part is deeper and structural.

The fact is that we are all far more multidimensional than merely over 18 and a citizen. So, the idea that we can be “represented” solely on the basis of over 18 and a citizen is just outright silly! As a result, the system could not possibly be “representative” of who we are as a society or what we want the country to become.

Yet, the media ignores this story completely. Not out of malice or conspiracy. Rather, a mix of not being a sexy topic (e.g., celebrity, scandal and horserace politics) and willful blindness.

So, why are we not represented better? Simply put, it is the antiquated design of the system itself.

Turn and face the strange Ch-ch-changes

Despite incessant flag-waving rhetoric (especially in this bizarre election cycle), if you step back and think about our system, you know the ideas underlying its original design come from the 17th century. That means all the ideas for our existing system came before the industrial revolution. That was when

• the average person only lived to 40
• travel between New York and Washington D.C took days
• travel to Europe took weeks
• distance communication was limited to letter writing
• there was no indoor plumbing, no electricity, no cars, no TV, no computers and no nuclear or cyber weapons.

We then formalized these 17th century ideas in the Constitution during the late 18th century — some 230 years ago.

To put this in perspective, it would be like trying to design a political system today

that would still be fully functional

in the year 2246!

It is obvious — given the rate of technological, social, economic and global change we are experiencing now — that designing a system today to last 230 years into the future is impossible.

The only thing more impossible is assuming the existing 230-year-old system will become better as it gets older still.

Is this as good as it gets?

It is clear that our existing political system was designed for an era that no longer exists. Yet, we ignore what Thomas Jefferson believed. That Americans should revisit and rewrite the Constitution from scratch every 20 years.

The point is, given how dysfunctional our political system has become, why would you or anyone blindly assume it will somehow function better 10 years from now — in 2026?

Or, how about in the year 2036 or 2050?

And, if you doubt it will work better in the future, when do you think we should start designing a better political system? Now or when things become still more dysfunctional and dangerous to your well-being and future?

No taxation without representation

Despite all the popular election year chatter about the U.S. being a democracy, the fact is there is absolutely no mention of the word “democracy” in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. None.

And, this was not an accident. It was deliberate. The design of our system was supposed to be a “representative” system.

Regardless of what you want to call our political system — “American democracy,” “our democracy,” this democracy,” “a democracy,” “representative democracy” or a “republic” — you should be asking a very basic question: Is this system truly representative?

Many think not, which raises another question: What might make it more representative?

Many suggest we develop a “real” democracy in the classic Greek sense. The fact is many states (but never the U.S. government) offer “direct” democracy options in the form of initiative, referendum and recall elections.

However, the experience and record of such direct democracy efforts is, at best, mixed. Indeed, what often happens is that either

• people want to remove or add something without having a better solution to propose or have not fully considered all the consequences; and or
• money, often subtly, influences the entire process and outcome.

Thus, in practice, these direct democracy efforts have developed a dubious reputation for creating unexpected, bad or suboptimal outcomes.

Voting in elections

Perhaps the single biggest flaw in the design of our antiquated political system is that it guarantees only politicians, and by extension the major political parties, can write the rules governing elections and voting. The result was a sordid history of illegal literacy tests, civil rights abuses and today’s voter ID laws.

Moreover, as every high school student learned, it was not until

• after the Civil War that politicians “allowed” most white men to vote
• 1920 that politicians “allowed” women to vote
• 1965 — 177 years after the Constitution — that politicians “allowed” all minorities to vote.

So, now, finally, everyone can vote. But what exactly does voting mean?

When the system was originally designed it was assumed getting elected was about altruistic public service. Also when designed the intent was to exclude political parties completely.

Today, being an elected politician is about a self-interested, upwardly mobile career. Similarly, political parties see control of elections as critical to controlling our collective checkbook.

Both see winning elections as a way to reward friends and punish enemies. Consequently, voting has become a means to an end for both. It has nothing to do with being representative. So, there is zero incentive to change voting or to make the system more representative.

So, again, ask yourself something basic: Is simply having the right to vote every 2 or 4 years enough to genuinely represent you?

Voting for presidents

Think about the reality of your actual participation in voting. If you start voting in presidential elections at age 18, and vote in every election for 60 years (until you were 78), you will have voted a maximum of 15 times. But, wait — you also need to consider the impact of two-term (8 years) presidents.

For example, there were 11 elections for president in the 44 years from Nixon in 1968 through Obama in 2012 (excluding Ford, who was never elected), but only 7 different presidents. Said differently, such a voter really had only 7 opportunities to be represented — to influence the country’s direction and future.

This trend suggests that, with the current 2016 election and 12 years more before reaching 78, it is likely such a voter will have only 2 more chances to select a president. Thus, in a lifetime you and everyone else will probably only have a maximum of 9 chances to be represented — to influence the country’s direction and future.

But the actual situation is worse.

Running for president requires support of a major political party, name recognition, and staggering amounts of money to compete. Moreover, a party’s candidate is nominated in primaries dominated by self-interested partisans.

Thus, the candidate choices you have were limited before you and any regular voter ever actually voted (e.g., Trump and Clinton). And, of course, in this system’s 18th century design, the Electoral College makes the popular vote total of secondary importance (e.g., 2000 election).

Finally, given the four-year gap between elections, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for you or any average voter to know enough about all of the key issues and the candidate’s respective positions to genuinely be able to discern who would be the best choice to represent you — and for the country’s direction and future.

Indeed, the basic idea of electing a one-size-fits-all candidate — based on superficial campaigns claiming to have all the answers to all our problems for the next four years — is absurd beyond belief in today’s rapidly changing world.

Voting for state representatives and senators

Of course, it is easy to think that voting for state representatives and senators offers you more opportunities to be better represented and influence the direction of the country. Except it is NOT true.

The fact is the average tenure of representatives is 9 years, and 10 years for senators. In other words, in a lifetime, you will probably have only 6 chances to be represented — and to influence the direction of the country.

Of course, as a practical matter, the actual situation is worse.

The fact is boundary lines limiting who you can vote for as representatives are drawn by political partisans. And, it is an open secret that this exercise is designed to favor one party as much as possible (i.e., gerrymandering). So, the choices of who you can vote for to represent you is limited before you ever actually vote.

Also, while every state has two senators, only 9 states contain the majority of the population (51.1%). This means the senators from the other 41 states, who together “represent” a minority of the population, have more influence — not only in the Senate but in Congress generally — on every issue and the direction and future of the country than those “representing” the majority.

Finally, on average each state representative has over 700,000 constituents, and many more for each senator. Consequently, as a practical matter, none of them could not possibly know, meet or genuinely interact with more than a handful of their constituents annually. Thus, the whole idea of real voter “representation” is pure sophistry — a fiction.

There is, however, one group that is “represented” exceptionally well — special interest groups— each office staffed by well-connected political insiders with lots of resources and fat checkbooks to help political careers. Their close proximity to politicians in Washington constitute a sufficiently small enough group to know, meet and interact with and make “representation” simple.

Let’s not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late

Simply put, as a practical matter,

• you have very few voting opportunities in your lifetime to be “represented”
• your choices for president to “represent” you are pre-selected by self-interested partisans
• your choices for state “representatives” are manipulated to limit your options
• senate guarantees a minority of the population is always “represented” far more than the majority
• by far, special interest groups have the best chance of actually being “represented”

In other words, our political and electoral voting systems are in no way really “representative.” Consequently, the current system’s entire operational structure increasingly has ever less connection to what the majority of us see as reality now or want in the future.

More to the point, if our electoral systems stay this way, we should expect the political system to become increasingly dysfunctional. This means the country’s direction and our future become increasingly vulnerable to undesirable or bad outcomes. In our rapidly changing 21st century technological world this makes no sense.

Voting in opinion polls

Generally speaking, opinion polling is less than a century old. However, opinion polling by institutions and the media did not really come into its own until after WWII. Yet, today, we are drowning in polls. Indeed, every media outlet has an endless stream of opinion polls to tell us about elections and various issues.

Of course, every federal and state government agency, endless number of departments in virtually all academic institutions, and major non-profit entities are continuously conducting opinion polling. Then there are all the major corporations, advertising agencies, and market research firms that are polling people endlessly to better advance their agenda and clients.

Now, every Internet company is vacuuming up our opinions 24/7/365. Each one recording and aggregating ever more of our habits, searches, choices, purchases, friends, likes and dislikes to the extent that, effectively, we all stand naked in front of these companies.

In this respect, the 1954 book, How To Lie With Statistics, is a classic how-to guide for misleading and manipulating people into believing just about anything with well-placed stats. Nothing has changed. Today, there’s enormous opportunity to manipulate voters with “big data.”

As anyone who has ever been associated with a political party, involved in a political campaign or worked for elected official knows, these groups are constantly conducting opinion polls. The fact is, in today’s politics, big data enables multidimensional voter profiling and scoring systems — your party preference, your stance on issues, extent you are persuadable and so on.

Thus, instead of using big data to actually “represent” you better, parties and politicians use it to manipulate you better — your voting behavior and choices. Just what we needed. What a deal!

Searching for a little bit of truth

The point is that, individually and as a society, consciously and unconsciously, with today’s opinion polling you are constantly voting on everything and anything every day.

Yet, when it comes to the most important, overriding aspect of your current and future life — from conception to death, from basic human rights to national security — you only get a total of 6 to 9 opportunities in a lifetime to vote and be represented. Yet, even this is utterly superficial and superfluous to the actual policies, decisions and actions taken.

That is NOT representation. Nor does it make sense in the context of what is possible.

There is an old New York City joke that asks: how do you get to Carnegie Hall? The answer is practice, practice, practice. Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers, describes how successful people invest many 1000s of hours studying and practicing what they want to pursue.

It is a basic idea. To be good at anything you need to study and practice. But, in the existing political system, on the issues underlying and directing every aspect of your life and future, you are not encouraged, let alone enabled, to do this effectively.

You and I need to be better represented. To do this we need more opportunities to study issues and have more voting opportunities.

If I were a rich man

Given the ease and abundance of both on- and off- line opinion polling there should be a simple way to establish a national 24–7–365 voting system. A system that is dynamically representative, multidimensional and focused solely on important political issues — now and in future.

Fortunately, as a technical matter, creating such a representative voting system is a straightforward task. The real challenge is funding such a voting system.

Indeed, securing adequate funding for the birth and maintenance of such a voting system through the first couple of presidential election cycles is critical. There must be enough time to develop widespread awareness, tweak the system’s operational performance, and develop a track record of trustworthiness.

However, those with a vested interest in the existing political and electoral systems have no incentive to change how it operates or providing more voting opportunities.

There are, of course, many wealthy, civic minded activists who could initially assist in creating a well-articulated, highly visible and truly representative 24/7/365 voting system. Perhaps something akin to a “Kickstarter” campaign where wealthy activists contribute matching amounts at various thresholds could get the ball rolling.

There must be some way outta here

To actually be represented and influence the operation, direction and future of the country, something will have to change.

Better representation is the only quick and viable way to modify our existing antiquated and “unrepresentative” political system. A system never designed for this era and the current rate of change in such a dense, hyper-connected, interactive, global environment.

Better representation requires a new voting system. A system enabling voters to engage on more substantive issues on a more regular, ad hoc basis.

Otherwise, if you think things are bad now, best reconcile yourself to the idea that your situation and that of the country as a whole are quite likely to get more dysfunctional and dangerous. That would be an unwarranted tragedy.

If you enjoyed this post, and want to share it, please hit “Recommend” below. Thanks! It helps spread these ideas!

You can find more of my ideas at my Medium publication, A Passion to Evolve or my website dochuston1. com

In any case, may you live long and prosper.

Doc Huston