In the euro crisis, the term casting failure recently became more common.

It described the problems of the common currency of European countries, which stem from the very different starting points of its founders.

In the United States, the entire country’s political system is one major casting failure.

It is even becoming a caricature of democracy on this occasion.

This is once again materialized in the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court after the death of Liberal Justice member Ruth Bader Ginsburg last Friday.

His successor is elected by a president who does not represent the majority of the people.

The election is confirmed by the upper house of the Senate, which does not represent the majority of the people.

The consequences may be such that the will of the minority of the people will be systematically realized in the next few decades.

And no one really can do anything about it.

The founders' compromise

The casting failure stems from the U.S. Constitution, which is essentially a document almost a quarter of a thousand years old.

Some want to interpret it as the founding fathers of the country meant and not make any modernizations.

When the 13 original states met in Philadelphia to turn the U.S. federal state in 1787, a parliament was proposed in which members would be elected in proportion to the population of the states.

This was not valid for smaller states that feared falling under the yoke of bigger ones.

The United States threatened not to be born, but it was saved by a compromise: members of the lower house were elected in proportion to the population, but in the upper house of parliament, the senate, each state received an equal number of representatives.

It was a solution that more equitably respected all the states that came together.

Unfortunately, only the founding fathers could not even imagine what it could lead to centuries later.

The minority dominates

The modern United States is made up of 50 states that are strongly differentiated into political camps.

Roughly speaking, the Republicans are more rural and more conservative than the Republicans, and the more urbanized and more liberal are those dominated by the Democrats.

There are more of the former states.

However, they are home to fewer people.

Republicans currently have 53 senators in the 100-member Senate against 47 Democrats.

However, according to various calculations, Republican senators represent only 159 million Americans while Democratic senators represent 168 million.

These 47 Democratic senators have garnered 14 million more votes than their 53 Republican colleagues in the election.

The distortion can be considered significant and stagnant because it is really difficult for Democrats to win elections in Republican states.

The distortion is also unequal, as the population of the ruling republican states is for-profit white, while the population of the democracies that remain in power is growing due to racial minorities.

The distortion runs through the entire political system.

Also in the lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives, Republicans have more representatives than would be justified by the number of votes they receive due to the constituency.

Currently, the House of Representatives is in the hands of Democrats, but it will not accomplish anything because the Senate will cram all its intentions.

The majority power that is realized in the House of Representatives will die in the Senate.

Minority judges

As is well known, the President of the United States is currently a person who received three million fewer votes than his or her opponent, but became President because of the electoral electoral system.

And might do it again.

All in all, it is no wonder that U.S. Democrats, in effect members of the majority of the people, are currently plagued by a minority president and senate train to an important judge without questioning anyone else and in a hurry just before an election where they are even threatened by an even smaller minority.

There are other judges in the nine-member court who have been seated there by a minority.

They can continue in office for decades.

The argument is used to defend the composition and operation of the Senate that it is not intended to represent the people but the states in the federal state.

Hardly anyone disputes this principle, but the question is, how far is it appropriate to stretch it?

The situation is that, for example, the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, which is the basis of abortion law, could overturn in the Supreme Court in the near future, although some opinion polls show that up to three-quarters of Americans still support the decision.

Justice was politicized

U.S. Democrats may also blame themselves for the situation.

In the past, the position of another party had to be taken into account when filling judges because of the so-called filibuster rule.

Democrats then became nervous about the Republican constant opposition under President Barack Obama and changed the rules so that they were no longer needed.

Once in power, Republicans have thanked for the opportunity and packed the courts with conservative judges.

Senate Republican President Mitch McConnell has made this his main task.

When the other party no longer has to be listened to, judge appointments have been more and more ideologically colored.

The Supreme Court is becoming more politicized, even though it should just be above politics.

If the United States were an EU country, it would get others to shout about their appointment as judges.

The controversial role of the Republican-ruled Senate also extends beyond.

Congress should act as the controlling power of the executive, that is, in practice, the president.

Today, that means what the president himself said last Monday:

- We have the Senate in our possession… we can really do anything.

Thus, with the support of the Senate, the President has been able to drive down the country’s post office in peace before the first large-scale postal vote in history.

All of the voting reforms enacted by the House of Representatives lie on the Senate table unaddressed.

All of this is believed to hit Democrat voters hardest.

So to the majority, whose will may again not be realized.

According to the worst paintings, there is a coup going on to strengthen rarity in the United States.

It may ultimately be guaranteed by the Supreme Court if voting disputes or the status of president end up there.

The spiral deepens

Less could be achieved if politicians agreed to respect and listen to each other and seek compromises.

Such was the United States in the past, when the system still worked in some way.

Now we are beaten under the belt, mocked, and left to prepare for the inevitable revenge that will inevitably come.

So what do Democrats plan to do in retaliation if they get to grip themselves in next November’s election?

There have been two upheavals on display: making the capital Washington and the states of Puerto Rico and raising the number of Senate seats from one hundred to 104.

Four new senators from the new states would most likely be Democrats.

Another proposal is to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court from nine to eleven or even 13 and to appoint more liberals to the court to even out the disparity.

The problem with these two solutions is that they would further exacerbate the dichotomy and could turn badly against themselves.

There is no guarantee that power relations in the states will remain as they are today.

The situation could worsen to the rarity of either party.

Adding judges would be the last rivet in the Supreme Court coffin as it became more politicized.

It is one of the last institutions that the United States still trusts to some extent when politicians no longer deserve trust.

What does all this mean?

Of course, disagreements can still be resolved.

However, getting closer all the time, there is also the possibility that some states will begin to break free from the creepy madness called the United States.