> … which means that less than 5% of Americans will truly be deciding who's in control of the House
Something about this framing seems to undersell the efforts and influence of the other 95% of voters.
If a soccer match were tied 6-6 and a last minute winner made it 6-7, the final goal scorer may be celebrated as the hero, but in truth the victory was won on the back of six other goals too.
Yeah that really doesn't fly.
If you want to make a soccer analogy, it's like you get to pick the players on both teams. Surprise, the outcome is pretty much known in advance.
I've always liked this. In the USA, the voter doesn't pick their politician. It's the other way around, the politician picks their voters
I think that's an oversimplification. Voting does not have the same dynamics as soccer goals. Maybe a better analogy would be that the team is already winning 5-1 and in the last minute someone makes it 5-2. Good job of course, but can't really be said to influence the outcome.
Isn’t it more like the referee being for sale? He who pays more scores more goals
There's a reason why the majority of Americans don't bother voting. It has nothing to do with laziness or apathy. It's because voting does not matter, and never did.
It's like one of those kid steering wheels that lets the little tike pretend he's driving.
The "candidates" are preselected by powers unseen behind the curtain in smoke filled rooms, and the "choices" you are presented with are not actual choices at all.
I believe the point is that, since the electoral races are already decided in terms of party, the only decision is whom to nominate. This decision is made in the primaries, by a very small number of voters.