While reflecting on the state of our union, I tend to pause on a few issues, especially during an election year. There is one thought I learned some time ago. Generally, people are more attached to their family than to their neighborhood, to their neighborhood than to their community, to their community than to their county, to their county than to their state and to their state than to their national government. As such, it seems any national government so distant from the people cannot truly be expected to share and serve the social, political, economic or practical needs and interests of the people.

Within that, and in a fruitless attempt to provide a “practical” though illogical satisfactory response, the government offers “accommodating flexibility.” This is done by providing a veritable watershed of complex rules, regulations, requirements, policies, protocols, procedures, programs, forms and guidelines all streaming into the swamp. Much of these are merely artificial mechanisms that often fail at solving real problems. Ironically, it also contradicts flexibility. Add to this, the intended flexibility is very often indecipherable to the general public.

What ensues is a high degree of uncertain dependency. That dependency disempowers the citizen and all the more empowers the state. The uncertainty goes even deeper in the form of political candidates who more and more are showing less and less of their relatability to voters. Interests, goals and gratitudes are not the same between voters and candidates. Hence, votes seldom translate into hoped-for outcomes. The economic and social status of many, if not most, candidates is far removed from the average voter. It becomes further removed during the course of their official tenures. This general lack of commonality then behooves candidates to rely on the proverbial political placating platitudes that have not changed over the decades.

Many candidates, to a greater extent disconnect by insulting voters when they employ smear campaigns, childishly personally denigrate challengers or seek misplaced revenge. Voters expect to hear how a candidate intends to address and resolve major issues. Without such, voters are less informed and more controlled.

One way to possibly make the average voter’s voice more meaningful is to simplify the means by which it could be done. A few thoughts come to mind. Try going back to the paper ballot distributed at the poll. What is more simplistic than paper and pencil? Require the use of a valid voter ID card. Consider a more stringent vote count monitored by select members of all participating parties in the race. Consider also, without electronic voting, hackers would be ineffectual. Why not require all candidates for office only spend the same amount of money during campaigning? It would disallow any corporate or special interest group donations, which would allay the buying of a seat and eliminate any quid pro quo between candidates and benefactors. The average individual voter alone cannot compete with corporate political war chests. With collective but limited tax money, citizens would have at least a stronger voice and a better chance at getting more bang for their buck.

Additionally, why not limit campaigns to a six- to eight-month time period? With today’s numerous media outlets and non-second timing, if candidates can’t get an effective message out in eight months, they have no message.

America has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the world. This may be due to a dearth of quality candidates. Late comedian George Carlin explained it this way: “It’s our own fault, these candidates are the products of American homes, in American communities, they are taught in American schools, attend American churches and graduate from American universities. Face it folks, this is the best we can do!”

Certainly, he was more sobering than humorous. With our version of democracy, we simply get what we deserve. The two parties do little more than divide the nation. Add to this, America may well be the only democracy in the world without a national labor party.

Voting for the lesser of two evils as a pacifier seems simply futile. A better response would suggest a no-confidence box on the ballot denoting a vote for neither choice. These votes should be counted, and if they pose a majority, the eight-month process starts over with new choices. It is still less campaign time than currently and gives voters a more powerful voice. Adding more referenda to the ballots might grow voter turnout numbers as well. We might also eliminate the piggybacking of bills, which often creates another quid pro quo between representatives. This would mean single votes on single issues. How about a one-time five-year presidential term that would eliminate a two-year campaign in a four-year term and allow a president to get more accomplished? Of course, terms have always had a limit. We call it voting day.

Certainly I would much rather live in America than anywhere else; however, that does not dismiss the need to address existing concerns like homeless veterans, poor mental health care, immigration, racism, antisemitism, a weak economy, crumbling infrastructure and corporate interventionism.

To those who say love it or leave it, I say a coward leaves — a true patriot stays to fight the fight to save the country. It is more than obvious that America has numerous acute problems calling for sane, critically thought-out responses. America needs logical, rational considerations to pull it out of this mess.

DON NOVIELLO

South Williamsport