Thank you, Joe, for this well-written article. Very insightful and you made it personal, too. Real good job. My comments are about the big-picture that I often find missing in our US stories. So, I hope you'll let me reply in this way of wanting to add a larger perspective.
As voters, we are not very empowered about our representatives. We actually compete with other voters for the single seat. That means that up to 49.9 percent of the voters can potentially go home empty-handed, and this can even occur many times over the years (also explaining why we have a low voter turnout, because in the other form of democracy all voters simply pick the one they want and always get that person/party).
The issue you write about is a political issue at the individual level. But it is also a political issue about the empowerment of the individual voter.
Let me explain it this way: Our voting system is set up like flipping a coin that always ends up in heads. The Republican or the Democratic winner picked heads and got the seat. I know, humor me with this peculiar setup. Those voters that picked tails go home empty-handed.
This setup leads to three layers in society involving political empowerment, and I will then show how that links to Proud Boys and others alike.
*In the middle layer of society, the battle is on between Republicans and Democrats about who is going to get that toss of heads. Both must win over the majority of the voters, so this is truly where a single voter counts.
*In the bottom layer of society, the voters end up picking tails. Every now and then, their desired representative will be picked, but the representative must make sure to give much to the center section of society to optimize their chances for next time around. The bottom may get a representative every now and then, but will not receive much of the fruits.
*The top layer of society always picks heads. Like a sailboat in the wind, they adjust the sails and always have their ships come in.
What this means and which has often been seen in history throughout the world is that the political battle is worst right between the center and the bottom. The ones at the very bottom are a lost cause, but right where there is that glimmer of hope to get that representative, that is where the most fanatic and passionate attempts are made to get what all believe is rightfully theirs.
In winner-take-all, it is about convincing the group (and not the individual) to march a certain way.
I hope I am clear enough in my words. What I am trying to show is that the strongest arrows are thrown in whichever direction by those that can believe the win is available and that have been oppressed throughout their lives by others winning, or were made to believe that certain elements in society are to blame for our group's lower-than-need-be position. Infighting occurs especially among those groups that do not receive enough empowerment in society and think the other group is getting more than they deserve.
Lastly, I want to address the word fascism and the USA. A voting system of divide and conquer in which an elite is always secured of political access and success is fascist in nature. Non-fascist is a nation where all voters are equal in the result. Just to make this more clear, China moved from being a communist nation to being a fascist nation. Where first the people were the ideal and this was dictated by the top, now the economic forces are more central than the people, and still dictated by the top. Whoever is in the center (people or money) declares the difference of the system.
In a democracy (the real democracy with all voters being represented) the voters decide how far to change the dial between people in the center and money in the center. We, in the US, do not have good access to the dial (but more than the people in China). Our fascism is therefore of a mostly benevolent kind, but I hope you can see that where push comes to shove in our society that we should then not be surprised that certain people take in almost fascist positions. They are expressing the limitations of our restricted democracy.
Thank you again for a very well-written article. My hope is that you add (perhaps a single sentence) in your next article about the position that our nation does not equally empower voters/people and how that is a reality we find ourselves in. The societal effects are real of not being fully empowered as voters.
Lastly, a little joke. If we say the Democrats are Blue and the Republicans are Red, then the voters that are not represented are Yellow. Yellow pushes and shoves anyway it can to penetrate Blue or Red to get at least something. This last time, Yellow succeeded in turning the Red party Orange.
P.S. Yes, we can change our system today, US Constitution approved:
-At the local level it is even demanded in the 14th Amendment that requires governments to not use discriminating systems if a better system is available.
-At the state level, but the US Constitution gives states broad freedoms, so there is no demand, but we can get equal representation there today if we all want it.
-At the federal level it is the hardest because many details are prescribed in the US Constitution for the federal level. For instance, two senators per state. That will not be easy to change. But, easier to change would be to make the Senate only vote yes or no for bills coming from the House. They would then not be able to write bills themselves any longer and simplify the process.
