RAZD writes:
Representative democracy will always be open\subject to corruption and corrupting influences, so how can we put a check on that process?
Damned if I know. I once thought our founders did a pretty good job of it, but as things stand, maybe not so much.
But I think the answer in any democracy lies with the voters. An electorate informed and involved enough for a just and effective direct democracy would do just as well at representative democracy, and vice versa.
Demand transparency, rein in big money: the essential political reform of our time. But the voters who indirectly created the current SCOTUS would do no better seating them directly.
I'm not inalterably opposed to national referenda, but the bar to launching them should be high, or we'll get knocked around like ping pong balls.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."