That ability to keep things unpredictable and interesting is what keeps people tuning in time and again. That ability to never let anyone know what’s next keeps things interesting. At some point, they all play out their relevance. People move on and desire other things. When certain things no longer fulfill the needs of the people, the clock starts ticking on their lifeline. The plot twists get tired and the script writers just can’t come up with things which continue the notion we are getting our half hour to hour’s worth.

It’s also what keeps the ratings high and that keeps the big corporate sponsors coming in and pouring money into advertising dollars. They follow the people. Once the people aren’t interested they move on to whatever is next.

That, pretty much, keeps the television industry going - the direction people are moving in. The ability to stay relevant and current is important there. The ability to keep folks guessing, but not change up so often or so drastically you completely lose them seems a sweet science as it were.

When a sitcom, for example, no longer keeps people coming back to stay entertained during the allotted timeslot, the purpose for its being kept alive begins to wane. When the people start asking, “isn’t there anything else on T.V.?” the sitcom had better do something fast or risk losing its following. Because, once that happens, things begin to fall apart.

At that point the markets will decide and whoever is offering the best product and gets folks to come and keep coming reaps the rewards that go along with such an accomplishment. Advertisers shift their priorities at that point and begin looking at the alternative. If the numbers make sense, they will move in that direction.

The same can be said of politics. People go where there are folks meeting their needs, or who they believe will fulfill their future needs. When one group fails they go to another. Simple math, right?

But what happens when the political system becomes the entire sitcom? What happens when there ceases to be anything, but the same old story offered? What happens when it’s these guys or those guys and the storyline ends up being ‘we go here this year then there next year?’ At some point don’t things get a little played out?

As complex and diverse as we are as a society, especially younger generations, can two guys really give us everything? What happens when the two guys are merely trying to hold on to their place and to do so work out mutual deals to keep sharing power? What happens when the story just repeats itself ad nausea, because those two old guys don’t want to give up their cushy jobs with all the perks?

At what point do we start to seek out alternatives? At what point do we begin to say, “we no longer care about your efforts to stay relevant and the new troupe of actors each side will bring in this season?” At what point do we seek to change the channel?

We just had this “huge” election supposed to change things entirely. People come on primetime news and cable news and tell us this was the result of a loosely connected group of people. We now know that is a lie. They were funded by the people who own Koch Industries and have been almost from their inception. Their leadership on the ground was even trained by them. They turned out to be just a new marketing ploy for consolidating votes for one of the two guys. For keeping the same old guys going.

How do we know this? Well, besides one of the two guys pouring millions into their cause and advertising to get them elected, all their candidates, despite all the claims of independence to begin with, ended up from one of the same two guys and that same bunch of the same old guys endorsed them all. Are we supposed to believe this was just happenstance? Have they gotten that out of touch they are that willing to insult the intelligence of everyday Americans? After the race even Karl Rove said about them that he accepts all Republicans no matter their ilk. They are thus one of the same old two guys, and that’s not to pick on the GOP, but that’s who they all turned out to be a part of. One of the same old guys who, until they came along, was previously on life support.

And what did we get for all that bang? One of the same two guys in a majority position in one if not both of the chambers. When is the last time one of those two parties wasn’t? Wages for the middle class and below have stagnated since the 1970’s while the rich got richer, and who brought us this? It was either the Democrats or the Republicans and always both. Same old story, different ratings season.

Now we even hear talk of a third party presidential candidate, but, no offense intended here, will another millionaire/ billionaire as a sole man out really change the story in any meaty sustainable way? Or, if he gets elected, will he eventually be voted out to be replaced by… you guessed it, same old guys. What would be different is if one, two or even three completely new parties running under their own banners ran, won big and significantly changed the face of the two chambers of the house.

That would be meaningful change and would set up the beginning of a political system which would be the same, and not radically different, but would begin to ready the kind of checks and balances necessary to really change the pitiful direction things have been headed in for the middle class. It would keep wealthy interests never knowing who to give money to or what was coming next. It could tilt things in our favor.

We need change, and two parties just aren’t going to cut it. The same old story has gotten lame. Give us something new. No more gimmicks and astroturfing. You’ve run your course. If you really are about change show it and allow others in. Give us more choices. Let us have the free market there as well.

For, what happens when people get sick of watching the same old storyline? It becomes boring - the loneliest sitcom in America.

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.