Right.
If you look elsewhere, you'll see my notes on the particulars of the US system. We have rent-seeking here in Australia, but nothing like the scale of the US.
The difference is that US Members of Congress are basically independent agents. No party discipline, and no executive constraints, prevent them from that kind of deal-making. It's down to the peculiarities of the US system, not representative democracy in general.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(Plus there's the standard libertarian argument that reducing the power of Congress reduces incentives to fiddle; but that doesn't do away with merely petty corruption).
Open government, e-democracy. The time has come.
But even those fall into strife. Politics is part of human nature; the encrustations of western civilisation and elsewhere are not arbitrary.
Maybe. But I think if you look at history, distributing power has always been the most successful strategies. Unfortunately, it's also the least popular with those who currently hold power, so it's often a knife fight.
I'm not quite sure it's as radical as you seem to think it is. Is voting for a Michelle Bachmann to vote on laws, or just voting directly on those laws, so different? Really? I'm not so sure. The internet has transformed every other industry. Can we not apply it to politics and leverage its power there?
homogenous politics
I've been arguing the U.S. perspective, and it is so divisive there that I don't think it could be worse.
Jacques, this will be my last post so: thanks for the great dialog. All the best.
You may not like it, but it's not really up to you (or me) to decide. The people can choose to eliminate that ineffective, rotten layer.