Covering All Bets, Why American Politics Is Split Down The Middle

Many reasons are cited for the division in modern American politics. Reasons why almost every presidential election, where neither candidate was an incumbent, since Ronald Reagan has been won by a less than 8% difference in the popular vote. In fact however the divisiveness goes back much further with over 90% of the presidential elections, where neither candidate was an incumbent, since 1840 having been won by a 10% or less difference in the popular vote with the exception being during the Great Depression and when candidates had taken over due to an assassination.

The main reason for this even split is that the slate of candidates to be chosen FROM during any given election is not chosen BY the majority of the American electorate, not even BY a decent minority of say 10 to 10%. The choice of candidates presented to the American electorate is made by the very small number of wealthy individuals, corporations, and other organizations that contribute over 90% of all of the funds used by candidates and parties to run campaigns. This money is given with the intent of influencing a candidate's future behavior if they win office. And since these wealthy individuals, corporations, and other organizations are not in the business of gambling, they cover all bets by planning for all eventualities by giving funds and support to both sides in an election such that both sides are influenced in the same directions no matter what the candidates public discourse may indicate. Hence the American electorate is presented with candidates that represent a difference without distinction.

The choice then is between two substantively identical options which then really are not "options" and do not constitute a true "choice". A campaign finance overhaul must be implemented that changes the legal max contributions from political donors such that candidates are forced to get donations from a much larger number of individuals distributed across the population.