Summations Only

IMHO, everything needs to start with campaign finance reform. Nothing in US politics can change unless this is changed. Politicians do not want to lose their office, and corporations offer them millions of dollars that they can then use to keep their office. While there may not be an overt quid pro quo, I think we can all agree that there is an unspoken "this for that".

All of them get money from Big Pharma/Oil/Business. That's the problem. Why else do you think that Anti-Trust exemptions for health insurance companies were considered untouchable when the last health insurance reform bill was written? Both parties agreed to this. Assuming that this same cadidate also shares your views on how government should work for you. I deleted a whole section of my first post that dealt with this. It's hard for me to separate "stupid voter" from "voter who does not vote like me". This is probably difficult for many of us. I would hope that this thread would not decay into partisan politics, but instead focus on a better system that actually gets our voices heard no matter what those voices are.At the same time, how many of those voices are merely echoes from corporate driven PAC's and Astroturf movements? How many people vote according to an NRA pamphlet when none of the candidates will actually vote for a change in gun laws? How many people have actually thought through the implications of a socialized health care system? Why are you for it or against it? Do you have solid reasons for that stance?I can respect a person who holds different views than me if they have solid reasons for holding that position. However, too many times I have seen people who hold a different position because of lies and misinformation. That is VERY frustrating.

I have had a few discussions with people 21-30 over a few pints. What I hear most is that they do not think their vote will matter, and there is no one that represents their views. My advice to them is to at least register and show up at the polls even if they don't vote. If politicians start seeing a big discrepancy between voter roll calls and number of votes submitted then perhaps some politicians will start to change their agenda to include younger americans.

It applies to both. Look at the number of TP candidates that turned up in Republican primaries, and some of them won. A progressive wing of the Democratic party could form the same way.

Then their organization sucks. They could barely get a health INSURANCE reform bill through Congress. They completely failed at the progressive push for health care reform.As to the Tea Party, I don't dislike them because they are organized. I dislike them because of what they stand for. There really isn't any competition since very few progressives will find anything to like in the TP movement. I think it could also be argued that neither movement is competing for centrist votes. It is really the centrist voters that need to start leaning one way or the other in order for either agenda to gain momentum.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think it would be practical. Run-off elections for local offices in my part of the country always draw a much, much smaller crowd than the initial election. It is hard enough to get people to show up for the first election, much less a second, or perhaps a third.A better solution would be to rework the primary process, IMHO. I am not sure how it could be done, but we need a better way to get top candidates onto the ballot, perhaps even outside of party lines. Wow. Didn't know it was that common.

Some of this had to do with the filibuster rules in the Senate. There were only 59 Dems, not enough to bust a filibuster if the Reps wanted to mount one. Frankly, Dems should have called the bluff and let them cry like babies for 3 months after which they could have enacted a half way decent bill.This also brings up another important point related more to the OP. Should we get rid of the filibuster? It does offer the minority protection of the tyranny of the majority, but is it worth it? In the last 10 years it is used to such a high degree that Congress has come to a screaching halt. It forces the majority to capitulate to the minority to such a degree that most bills are a worthless hybrid. You can hardly blame the voter for thinking that their vote doesn't matter when Congress gets nothing done, other than preening in front of the TV camera.In addition to the changes we have mentioned earlier, should there be a way to fast track an agenda based on voter mandate? Should the President be able to bust a filibuster and force a vote on a bill?

One interesting aspect of representative democracy (at least to me) is that they can pass a law that is beneficial to society that would probably not pass a general vote amongst the public. For example, civil rights laws may not have passed if put in front of the general public, and certainly not in the South. In some ways, we expect a representative government to pass laws that are good for the country, even if they are unpopular. While we may distrust government in some ways, we distrust the judgement of the hoi polloi even more.On top of that, representative democracies protect us from our own military. If not for an elected "head of state" there would be nothing stopping a general from becoming a dictator.

To use an analogy, a child may understand that vegetables are good for them but they would still not eat the vegetables if given the vote. Which citizen's reflection should we look at? Those for or against gun control? Those for or against socialized health care? Those for or against abortion?

In my analogy, the child was the country, not an individual. You are right, you can choose for yourself what you will eat and how you will live, as long as it does not affect others. However, we are talking about decisions within government that affect everyone.I am not wholly convinced of my own argument, so it will not be hard to push me away from it. However, I do have this gut feeling that we feel it necessary to buffer ourselves from the decisions of government. That buffer is a representative democracy. We need a proxy to make the correct decisions, even if they are unpopular.Here is another example of what I am talking about (it is admittedly weak, but worth some thought). Have you ever not wanted to go some event, but a part of you still kind of wants to go? What if your BFF calls up and asks you to go? At least for me, I hem and haw for awhile. I want to be "forced" to go, if you get my drift. The conversation usually ends with "Fine. I'll go. But you owe me one." The funny thing is that I usually end up having fun in the long run.This is sort of how I see this working. We want someone to make the tough decisions. We want someone to make us take the bitter pill and eat our vegetables. I don't know if a direct democracy could make this work. Perhaps it could. We can not pass laws that contradict each other. We can not have open access to abortion and ban the practice at the same time. We can not have unfettered access to firearms, and pass laws which limit that same access. There are simply ideas that can not mix.