Here we see clear proof the American system is not broken because effective action is clearly feasible. Assuming Congressman X’s remarks about the citizenry’s ignorance was indeed a signal to the public to wise up, we can see even the systems hardened cynics know how much power and responsibility the people of the United Sates have; or could. Missing that signal unfortunately are our people. As petty animosities spread and the discrediting of our electoral system intensifies, conventional wisdom reigns, critical thinking stops, and the defeat of civics is complete. The dismay is reinforced as little “forensic” analysis can be found as why our electoral efforts have so little affect and what’s really behind the dysfunctions. If pursued, such inquiry would show that our reliance on elite methodologies of quantitative study to understand our world is a crucial in all this. This influential hidden hand takes our complex, interconnected society and reduces it to counting, classifying, and constructing statistical “models” to understand the quality of human relations. While numbers have their place, the lack of a qualitative balance in these matters inevitably sheds our most pressing questions of context; further clouding everything that follows. This fetish also serves to seduce our public sphere with the dangerous promise of certainty. Confident that numbers tell us what is happening, signals are sent that conventional wisdom should be accepted without question because it comes from authorities; in this case, chiefly, our domain of academic political science. As the "Networks Rule" piece demonstates, this is a discipline with much more influence than might be commonly understood. An example of statistics, removed from context, “telling a story” cite the some 45-50% of Americans that do not identify with either major political party; which is reported as a crisis of democracy. However, what such “authoritative” pronouncements fail to take into account is that population, or a large portion of it, might not so identify because they are firmly in the camp of the disinterested most! It also ignores these possibilities: It also ignores the 50- 55% who do so “identify” might do so for a number of similar reasons; differing voting requirements, administrative legacy etc. But, it’s easy to spin these statistics into a narrative of highly conscious, “polarized-partisan-party-bots” versus “sick and tired independent voters of independent mind”; and it is! We are told a tale of partisan polarization and disenfranchisement; all based on numerical inference. In some - and not rare - cases this is taken to extreme levels whereby it is expressed, as fact, that people have no choice, and no role to play if they are not a “member” of one or the other major parties; patent nonsense as the “Think Again” piece here demonstrates. Most telling of all is what we never hear. Amidst all the numbers, the slicing and dicing and authoritative pronouncements, no qualitative standard for how elections should be conducted exists; nor is there any recognition that this is kind of a problem. “Democracy” 101, 227 plus years of a democratic republic with a popular electoral system at its core, and still we have no idea – much less agreement - on what a meaningful, credible, informative election is. Our ultimate form of expression and enforcement and this isn’t even contemplated. Are there any standards? Sure, if you like a good horse race. All arbitrary, so not a standard, a rule of thumb offered by modern political science is that a margin of victory determines not only the calculus – but by default also the quality - of an election. We are told that a margin of victory of 60-65%+ represents a “noncompetitive” election and that a margin of victory of 59-64% or less represents one that is “competitive” Ballotpedia assigns a much more stringent 5% margin.. This is yet more numerical inference signifying nothing but, it does represent a clever strategy to keep the conversation “authoritative”, dreary and so, contained. This, on the most ground floor matter a system based on elections and of/by and for the people principles could have. Before we discredit and discard, perhaps we should ask if better could be done.