Plutocracy is what it really is. Always has been. That's why anyone who had tried to change it was either incarcerated or assassinated. Hell, Washington himself had a fortune that, in today's money, would rival some of the greediest assholes currently in charge. That probably goes for the rest of the fuckers who were glorified as gods in flesh.

Is the two party system the problem? Or is the problem the power and corruption in politics?

For example-we could have a choice among five parties, that are in it for the power and not to serve the citizen, and how will that be more democratic? When corporate profits have a stronger "vote" than dirt poor farmers, how will that be more democratic? Is there such a financial hurdle to getting elected, that only very wealthy ever make it to DC? When propaganda overtakes news, how is that more democratic?

IMHO, it is the process that needs overhauling rather than the parties.

I remember when we used to work towards making all campaigns run on public-money only. No private money. No individual contributions. No bundling and no rich oligarchs underwriting their personal presidential savior. That seems like a lifetime ago. (sigh)

I still back that idea, tho. The amount of money it takes to run for president these days is sickening and immoral. Public financing only for running campaigns. Furthermore, the campaign should only last 1 or 2 months, as most civilized countries have already instituted. No more of this campaigning for the next election as soon as a person is elected in the present one.

I also agree we should do away with the "party" system. All it's good for is dividing the public into two or more camps... where, as we see today, ideology wins out over a country's needs, security, and people.

I'm leaning towards letting anyone and everyone run for the office, as themselves. Let them campaign on public money for a month and have a "primary" vote after that. The top 3-5 candidates then run in a run-off a month later. Eventually you'll have cliques form around interests, much as in Britain - with the Labor Party, etc. But by allowing so many to run at the "primary" I think any ideological movement would be naturally diluted using that format. (I may be wrong on that, I admit.)

And I'm another voice in getting rid of the Electoral College - have been for decades now. They're suppose to be a natural backstop to situations like we're in presently. We'll see. If they validate the election by voting for Trump (via: as their "state" voted), then they've just proved their obsolescence.

I'll also go one further than anyone else I've seen discuss. If an ideology DOES take hold, and is proven via the states (as "labs") or nationally to be against the natural interests of the public, and especially if it's shown time and again to work AGAINST the public by bankrupting the states or the People, then that ideology DIES. Period. Any attempt to bring that ideology back into the public square is automatic dismissal with prejudice from any electoral office or campaign.

We've got so much "big data" that it's easy to prove what works and what doesn't work. Of course, most people don't need big data to see what's right in front of their eyes; but for those, for example, who say ultra-conservatism can't fail, it can only BE failed... well, there has to be some mechanism to shut them down before they bring the state or country to the brink of destruction. At some point, Government-for-Dummies has to be retired.

My final rant on this subject is voting, itself. In addition to the points listed above - campaign financing, and time spent campaigning - there has to be other major changes before anyone will trust voting again.

First, NO electronic voting. We are not technologically savvy enough yet to ensure the machines are incapable of being hacked, toyed-with, or (as with any machine) just plain breaking down.

Voting should be by paper ballot, and the form should be standardized for all states. No punch-outs with their "hanging chads." Fill in the ovals and make allowances for those that color outside the lines. Assign aides for those who are physically unable to mark their ballots.

Have a publicly verifiable chain of custody on all ballots or boxes of ballots. These are to be treated, security-wise, like they were the Brinks bank truck moving money. Anyone associated with any campaigns are never to come close to a ballot (other than voting, themselves). Assign individuals to be responsible for the ballots in their region, and make them accountable in some form - on pain of contempt or jail time. We don't absolutely HAVE to know hours before the West Coast has voted who's won the election!

Further, if ID is demanded, then we go back to ID of domicile. Further, no birth certificates, etc., shall be demanded to obtain a Gov't ID card for those who don't drive; only validation of where they currently live.

And give the vote back to everyone. If the country must disenfranchise those serving time, then it should be a national rule that as soon as one's time behind bars is over, voting rights are restored. There should never be lifetime disenfranchisement for anyone!

Flip things opposite from the way they are now. Proving someone is not qualified to vote in this country comes first. NOT making an ordinary citizen prove he IS a citizen! For anyone accused of interfering with or denying voting rights, that individual is held as disqualified from anything to do with the election until proven innocent. If he's proven guilty, he goes back to citizen voter only. All rights and privileges associated with running or helping in an election are null and void for the individual (at the very least).

And lastly... and one of the most important... Election Day is a day off WITH pay for absolutely everyone - no exceptions, except for public health and safety. Exercising your right to vote is one of the most important things a citizen can do. Government and corporate/business should treat it as such!

little smoke. To the extent that I understand your posts, I also agree with them (which probably has a great deal to do with my loving them, but I am capable of appreciating a good post with which I disagree). However, I don't always understand everything in your posts. My mind can work only in certain ways and I seem to stink at grokking abstractions. Of course, not knowing how to accomplish what you envision is a stumbling block. (I know: Thanks, Capt. Obvious.) However, the first step for me is understanding your vision or I cannot begin to try even to discuss it. So, to help me understand:

1. Would the national referendum system you envision include everything on which Congress now is supposed to decide? Going to war, gays in the military, raising or reducing taxes and fees, bills that apply to Washington, D.C. (I think the internet makes this feasible, but is it wise?) If not, what would it include?

2. Please give two specific examples of what the representative system would include if it were "expanded." And, if we had a national referendum system and a state referendum system, would expanding the representative system be necessary? if we had a national referendum system and a state referendum system, wouldn't we be able to dismantle much costly central government? (exactly why it may never get done.)

3. Please give two specific example of citizen participation programs that do not exist now.

The Trump win was a huge Fuck You to the washington establishment. People wanted Trump because the govt no longer serves them. And they got off their couches and went down to the polling place to tell washington to Fuck Off. And they won. So elections are not a rigged farce as you claim.

Boycotting elections achieves NOTHING. NOTHING!

Too bad for all those Trump voters that they got played by a Conman.

There was a person of value they could have voted for, Jill. I don't know if she would have been a great president. But at least she'd be an honest one and would have worked for the people rather than the oligarchs.

I agree with all the things you list as things that need to be changed. But if Boycotting elections is your solution. Count me out.

Thousands more boycotted the president part of their ballots.
I like your ideas for where we would like to be. But I think we have choose several issues and focus on them. They need to be key issues, things that get the most change for the effort.

I would like to see doing something about media as a focus for all the true left, and since most of the country saw the media as biased for Hillary prior to the election, now might be a great time to gain support for that.
Breaking into the media makes it possible to get some truth out to the wide, general public. And I think that has to happen for any good, real change to take place. And when I say media, I don't mean just the internet. We need some TV. If the goofball Repubs cut any more of the National Public Broadcast budget, that will be an opportunity for the left, I think.