The American political scene has been dominated for decades by the two major parties--Democrats and Republicans. There is a long history of "third" or minor party involvement. During my lifetime, I've seen Benjamin Spock in 1972, Ross Perot in 1972, Ralph Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008, and Jill Stein 2012 and 2016. These campaigns were never given much heed, except in the role of potential spoiler. In the past week, we may have witnessed the beginning of a potential game-changer. The Green Party has filed a request for a recount of the presidential vote in Wisconsin and is reported that it will make similar requests in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

To date, a majority of the public, I presume, and I, most definitely, felt that a third party candidate had to win--at least a number of statewide elections--in order to have a substantive and identifiable impact on an election. The impact of these challenges may go far beyond that of a spoiler in an individual election year. The curtain may be drawn back, so to speak, on the general election process. The general public may well see it for what it is--a human invention with overlap, gaps, and other slippage in its implementation, if not design. There is historical evidence that the political elites in both major parties have made decisions to maintain the appearance of integrity in the system rather than to insure its validity in any individual election. There is Richard Nixon's loss to John Kennedy in 1960 and Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. Even though these two examples aren't a mirror image of one another, in the end the apparent rightful loser capitulated publicly and with considerable magnanimity--"for the sake of the republic" or some similar wording.

Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign certainly challenged the political elites in both parties--the Republicans during the primary election and the Democrats during the presidential election. Those challenges were successful in his win of the nomination and may have contributed equally to his victory in the general election. Will the end result be the demise of the Republican Party as we have known it? Will the Democratic Party refashion itself based on its own autopsy of the 2016 presidential election? President-elect Trump effectively questioned the partisan politics we have come to know in recent decades. Now it appears to be Jill Stein's and the Green Party's turn to call into the question the very mechanism whereby we cast our votes for president and, by inference, all who serve in an elected office. Let us not forget that this recount comes on the heels of a federal court decision declaring the latest Wisconsin redistricting map unconstitutional, within the context of an ongoing challenge to Wisconsin's voter id legislation and a revised Wisconsin Elections Commission. On the national level, we have seen the impact of actual or alleged computer hacking and fake news stories. There are several moving parts within this scenario, several of which are clearly partisan.

What will we see once the curtain is drawn back on the internal workings of the voting process and mechanics? Does a legitimate validation process even exist? Or will there simply be an endless series of curtains to be drawn back one by one as slowly and undramatically as possible until the concerned parties and the public become exhausted with the process? If the political elites are in charge of the process, will they simply regroup a little further back of the new front lines to quickly and quietly build a new breastworks? I am suggesting that the partisan politics practiced by both Republicans and Democrats, which have become clearly evident during the past 18 months, have raised serious questions as to the integrity of those with whom we have entrusted with this process or those whom we have permitted to be in control of the process. The recounts will provide us with some evidence as to whether or not the system has the ability to validate itself and to self-correct, if necessary. Failure to do so, will only contribute to the distrust of the general population in the political process and further alienate and even enrage that population.

Maybe I am reading too much of Donald Puchala's work (Theory and History in International Relations) into the current American scene. His discussion of empires and the roles of political and commercial elites in both core and satellite states in their own seemingly inevitable demise is telling.

Earlier this month I was approached by a member of the local Explorer Troop who was participating in a popcorn fundraiser and who enticed me to participate as well. Answering the door in the late afternoon sun I opted for caramel corn, which was touted as top-of-the-line and which lightened my wallet by $20.00.

Earlier today the delivery was made. There was no armed guard to protect my purchase and insure safe delivery; there was no brown paper bag to disguise the purchase and safeguard against marauding bands of caramel corn snatchers; there was no squad car accompanying the delivery vehicle guarding against likely hijackers. What arrived was an 18 oz. bag of caramel corn and mixed nuts. (I am going with the labeling on the bag as I have yet to examine its contents.)

The nutrition data suggests that this bag contains 17 servings--not 18 single ounce servings, not 12 ounce and a half servings, not 6 three ounce servings, or even 10 $2.00 servings. How does not arrive at 17 servings in an 18 ounce bag? It doesn't even round off to a number that one might expect for calories per serving.

I guess this means that I will need to gather together 16 of my closest friends to join me in enjoying some caramel popcorn with mixed nuts. I suppose I will need to provide drinks plus a cheese and cracker tray so these friends don't leave hungrier than when they arrived and far less friendly.

Bottom line: $20.00 for Girl Scout cookies is beginning to look a lot better than a Black Friday doubly discounted price. Bring on the Samoas.