In a 2 party system the political process is really supposed to be arbitration by the general electorate.
In baseball arbitration is when the team presents a contract proposal and the player represents a contract proposal. The arbiter will choose the proposal that seems most appropriate and reasonable. So each side is trying to make an argument that is fair and reasonable.
The whole presidential election process from the primary and caucuses through the party conventions is supposed to be to produce a platform and candidate that is reasonable and fair appealing to the general population to vote on. (To me in this context the logic of the electoral college makes more sense).
However it is crystal clear that producing a fair and reasonable platform and agenda is no longer the political process or objective.
So that means the role of the electorate is no longer to arbitrate. The general voting populace is no longer held in the esteemed position of arbiter. They are being treated like pawns, being forcibly stripped of their dignity as arbiters and made to choose sides in a mock ideological war.
So here’s a radical position. The electorate should strike. The arbiters should reject both proposals as unreasonable and refuse to issue a ruling. Force both sides to re-evaluate and produce better proposals for the country.
Of course if the general electorate refuses to vote that leaves only the radicals and they have as much control in the electorate’s absence as they do with their support. It’s impossible to get all voters to abstain, and so the total boycott idea is impractical and I can’t seriously advocate a “Don’t vote” campaign.
But the idea highlights the fact that the general population has little recourse to influence national politics on the party level, and in fact partisan politics are influencing how people live their lives at a cultural level.
I question whether that is consistent with the spirit of the law as given in our constitution and the vision of our founding father for the governance of this nation.