I personally hope they out the amount of government paid shills on the internet and any documentation as to their directive, such as how they 'slide' topics off of popular social media sites or comment to quell a rising storm.
To that end, when are we going to get some more reputable people in Washington? Why has it become the chore of the least of us to represent all of us? Where are all the upstanding citizens that these jobs should be filled with, rather than the lowest common denominator that's proliferated our house and senate to this day?
I've run through all the possibilities I could think of, regarding solutions to this mess, and the one that seems to come closest to reality is that we need to start pushing for the formation of a new party. Only by the formation of a new group, who has not yet been subjugated by the money powers that be, will we be able to get out of this mess. These revelations are our best chance to get such an initiative started, as those in a position of power are either too cowardly or too bought to do so themselves.
I've run through all the possibilities I could think of, regarding solutions to this mess, and the one that seems to come closest to reality is that we need to start pushing for the formation of a new party.
We already have plenty of alternative parties. Depending on your political leanings, they may or may not be appropriate to you, but there are groups like the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Worker's World Party, Prohibition Party, Pirate Party, etc. Hell, there's even a "Modern Whig Party".[1]
But a big part of the problem is the mechanism by which we elect representatives to our government. Most of the US uses single member district, "first past the post" (FPTP) voting[2], which has a side-effect of tending to create a "two party system"[3].
There are various initiatives around to push for the use of other voting systems which are more favorable to 3rd parties, like Approval Voting[4], Condorcet methods[5], Range voting[6], etc., but guess who typically sets the standards for how elections are conducted? Yeah, officials (mostly Democrats and Republicans) elected under the existing system! Talk about a "chicken or the egg" problem. But this is one of the first things that needs to be attacked, if we want a less corrupt, and more responsive government.
Part of the problem, as your post itself demonstrates, is an excess of choice: once we've decided we need something better than plurality voting (PV, aka FPTP), we have to pick a system. It becomes an engineering decision, and a rather subtle one at that. I've long been partial to Approval Voting, but I have to admit it has a clear disadvantage in actual use relative to PV: because the total number of votes is no longer bounded by the total number of voters, it gets much harder to detect fraud.
The point is, first, the relative merits of the various alternatives to PV are debatable (and debated), and second, considerations apply beyond the mathematical properties of the systems.
This is why, though I detest PV, I have little hope that a consensus will emerge as to the best alternative -- at least not without a lot of experimentation.
Personally, I have fallen in love with run-off elections (not sure the specific name) as used for electing the mayor in Chicago.
Basically, there is an officially non-partisan election in which anyone qualified can be on the ballot. The vote is held, with everyone able to vote for one person on the list. If there is a single winner (50%+1) then that person is declared the winner and the election if over. If no-one gets a majority of the votes the top 2 candidates face off in a run-off election about 2 months later.
This allows everyone to vote for their preferred candidate in the general election without 'wasting' their vote, but ensures that the eventual winner was chosen by at least 50% of their constituents.
There's obviously some tweaks that can be made (for one, it doesn't need to be non-partisan) but I think it does a very effective job at avoiding some of the party politics and the pandering to the base for the primary then moving to the center you see in many elections.
If there is strong public interest in changing systems, then there will be strong political pressure on those in office to work towards alternate systems. With this, is is reasonable to think that, after a process of debate, we will converge enough to one solution that we can pass it, both with the direct supporters and people who support it because it is better than nothing.
I think part of the problem (as in any new party) is defining the initial set of ideas to push for. What are you advocating this party's main concern is? Cleaning up the reputability of elected officials? That's a systemic problem that I'm not so sure a new party could fix.
I think the real action here is just getting one good, honest person to oust a current "low hanging fruit" politician. It needs to be more surgical, and convey a message that any one of you could be removed if the general population really wants to so get your shit together.
To that end, when are we going to get some more reputable people in Washington? Why has it become the chore of the least of us to represent all of us? Where are all the upstanding citizens that these jobs should be filled with, rather than the lowest common denominator that's proliferated our house and senate to this day?
I've run through all the possibilities I could think of, regarding solutions to this mess, and the one that seems to come closest to reality is that we need to start pushing for the formation of a new party. Only by the formation of a new group, who has not yet been subjugated by the money powers that be, will we be able to get out of this mess. These revelations are our best chance to get such an initiative started, as those in a position of power are either too cowardly or too bought to do so themselves.