Resetting our government/political system back to a more representative government?

Get rid of gerrymandering. 

Term limits 

Article V convention of states: Article V of the U.S. Constitution - COSAction (conventionofstates.com)

I believe there is only one way to get this government back to what the founders planned!  We need Honesty brought into “politics”.

Sheryl Attkisson said something that kind of disappointed me about politics.  She said once someone got to Washington, they were beholden to the party!  Couldn’t get assigned to committees, bring bills up for a vote or do much of anything, without agreeing with the party leadership!  Raising money (from a list of donors give to them) for the party.  If you didn’t toe the line, you would be primaried!  Basically you’re useless unless you agreed with them.

We need a method of “Snoping” what politicians say and do!  But, in a way that everyone would trust?  We need honest political leaders and celebrities from all sides of the political spectrum that would steer voters to this new “entity”!  It would rate politicians based on what they said and did, not what part of the political spectrum they are on or there policies.  Voter would select candidates based on an honesty rating.  I truly believe that everyone wants their politicians to be honest with them.  If they do what they promised, will that make them happy?  I think by looking at California, we can see that isn’t working!  Even for people that initially supported the leftists agenda.

I have been mulling this over for over 10 years and have lots of ideas on how this would work. Does this make sense to anyone?  Do you know of a dozen or so “honest politicians and/or celebrities” from all walks of life?

Yea or Nay

I don't know that there is a "Quick" way to fix the problems that have developed in our government over the last two centuries.

Generations of politicians have bent and tweaked the system into a prostituted mockery of what it was meant to be. It's become such a morass of perverted corruption that the only way to save it, is to tear it all down.

We'll have to remove every politician from office. Fire every head of every agency. Root out the bad actors in the bureaucracy from the top to the bottom. We'll have to restrict the ability of those in government to make changes in the system favorable to them. Yes, there would have to be a "Watchdog" arm to keep an eye on them. Maybe re-purpose the IRS? Even the courts would have to be purged of partisan actors. We would have to go through all the laws and remove a vast swath of them.

Then we would have to do the same at the state level, where necessary.

I really hate to put my idea out there, just in case their are some nefarious people that want to squash it.  I think I have given enough in different comments for someone that is serious about fixing our current system.  I will answer questions though.

Getting rid of gerrymandering is the answer that everyone comes up with, but I’m not sure it’s as practical as people might assume. The problem comes in distinguishing between sensible redistricting and gerrymandering. It’s kind of a subjective judgement. I remember a couple years back a few women who were clearly democrat activists standing outside my farmers’ market handing out pamphlets on the topic, but did thees activists really care about gerrymandering, or did they just want the gerrymandering to be done by democrats, in which case they would claim it wasn’t gerrymandering? We all know how this works in the media.

Term limits is another answer, but with how well-oiled the democrat machine is, I’m sure they’ll be able to churn out replacement suits to take over for those leaving office much more quickly than republicans will be able to find constitution-minded conservatives to take the place of their predecessors. It’s possible that term limits could nonetheless get rid of the incumbent advantage, but that also could do more to hurt conservatism than liberalism/socialism. This is because, while both parties would lose the incumbent advantage, the democrats would quickly make up for it in mass-media positive coverage of their candidates, while republican, having lost that incumbent advantage, would likely just cede their seats to media-whitewashed democrats pushing socialism.

It’s been a while in coming for me, but I’ve come to the conclusion that in the end, the only thing that can save America is the thing that made America in the first place: a moral and religious people. As John Adams famously said, our Constitution is wholly inadequate for the governance of anyone else. You don’t have to believe in God to see the benefits of freedom, but you do have to believe in God to have any support for the moral absolutes upon which freedom must be based. Our founders were smart in setting up checks and balances, and those mechanisms are very useful in holding back people who respect them, but for a people filled with lies and jealousy, who lack even the basis for morality, I fear these checks and balances are only obstacles that will be overrun in time, and not much at that.

Unfortunately, I think this means we need to go back before we can go forward. While not abandoning national politics, I think we need to turn our focus to our local communities and build them up while strengthening our own lives and the people around us. Go to church, be a part of your community, get involved in local politics. Dr. Faust, or whatever his name is, lied to the American people about what percentage of the population he thought would need to reach herd ammunity before the country could open up again. He later revised his estimate upward, stating that he was convinced people were finally ready to hear what he actually thought.

Stop being ready. Stop conforming to the world around you and instead be transformed by the renewing of your mind, and having done so, renew your community as well. I think we have to start again from there. When our betters in Washington tell us to do this or that, our communities need to be strong enough to stand up and say no to the point that Washington stops trying and even the bad people in politics have to go along with the will of a moral people. I think that’s what the Bibe means when it talks about giving us peace with our enemies. There is only peace when the good are in control and even the wicked are forced by necessity to cooperate. The funny thing is that this ends up benefiting everyone, including the wicked, who are saved in some part from their own wickedness.

Anyway, sorry for the long flow of consciousness.

How about this... create a “party" based on a similar idea of an index fund.. basically raise money and then invest in candidates based on merits rather than party affiliation. Basically make an abstract layer on top of the parties that chooses candidate by candidate and allows them to essentially be independent regardless of the letter behind their names. Of course the problem of not getting placed on committees and therefore the power that goes with it still exists- until enough of these "independents" are elected. 

I agree with the posters who emphasize virtue in the citizenry as a precondition. It won't matter if they are given freedom without virtue becuase they will just use that freedom to hurt themselves and others. That said, there are two systemic things we can do to make government representative right away (and 13 things we must do to keep it that way). Both involve decentralization of course.

1) End the federal reserve system and return to honest money, preferably private money with government only there to see that contracts are kept. The state has abused the power over money since Rome begain shaving silver from their denarius. When there is fiat currency, all restraints are off. The politicans will no longer represent the people because the smart ones know that whoever runs the printing press can, if need be, generate a trillion dollars whose value comes from the labors of the very people they intend to cheat. Why did the tech giants not care if they were offending half the population of America (it has cost them about 51 billion in lost stock value). Because those people don't matter nearly as much as those who run the printing presses. Pleasing them matters more than pleasing customers- and it isn't any different with politicians. This is a non-intuitive answer but it is essential. You cannot have central banking and decentralized government. You must choose one or the other. 

2) End First-past-the-post method of determining the winners and have run-offs for all elections, preferably instant-runoffs. Right now the two major parties do not even have to trot out candidates that people love (they'd almost rather not because they want reliable system people who know they need the system). All they have to do is convince you the other label is even more loathsome. The parties don't have to represent anybody! They can just keep serving the folks I talked about in #1.

They have run-offs in their own party primaries, and when electing their own party officers. Why isn't it good enough for the rest of us? This will open the door to giving more parties a fair chance, increasing our chances to be represented. Imagine if Tide and Gain were the only two detergents, McDonald's and Burger King the only two hamburger chains. Fox and CNN the only two cable news channels. 

I posted this on Minds a week ago. https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1193929518324776960

Brainstorming:

Imagine if you could peel back the curtain on two alternatives of the future...

Option 1: Crackdown

In one the government uses the so-called "storming" of the Capitol Building as a pretense to enact endless "emergency powers" of the form we see in authoritarian states, tries to crack down on the enormous number of patriotic veterans and other gun owners supposedly to "calm the nation, solve the COVID crisis, end global warming, fix systemic racism, eradicate toxic masculinity, [more SJW bullshit here]..." The result is, of course, organized political violence the citizens would see as justified and essentially defensive.

Option 2: Strict Constitutionalism

In the other you simply abolish every single policy, activity and agency of the federal government that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution with the recommendation that states can form their own interstate associations and agencies at will.

Question

Which would be called "too radical" by the MSM: Shooting or freeing Americans?

TLDR: Like SportsCenter™️, for Government.  Comprehensive stats on every player in the league.

One of the first steps is to understand who and what that representative government consists of. And it depends..

Depending on where a person lives (and I'll assume, the US), several layers of governance applies. (city, county, state, federal, and special districts). There are more than 90,000 jurisdictions in the US. More than 500,000 elected officials.
 
And, each person/citizen brings their own particular perspectives and interests - for example: local school boards or dog parks vs county unincorporated land issues vs state transportation vs. federal tax legislation.

Lots of public information exists. In different places. This is good.
But it is typically not readily usable nor enjoyable.

So, regarding how to support a more representative government, I'm working toward unifying the interface to government. I think this will help improve how public services are discovered, delivered, and assessed. The right data and tools can increase the resolution and fidelity at which our individual and collective voices are promised representation and how we can account for it.

Another potential help would be single page (defined type-set) bills only.

To revert the results of the "long march through the institutions" it takes an equally long march back, or, instantaneously cripple the power of these institutions.

If you think it's a strategy to (only) remove the leaders of the institutions, then you have to come up with a strategy by which you find new sound minded and skilled individuals by which to replace them (but again, how do you grow them, and where?). New generations are already brainwashed since the fortresses on the front lines of the culture war, the universities, has already fallen in the hands of the enemies of society.

For this reason I found Larry Sanger's idea about independent examination being an interesting thought, as described in this post:

https://larrysanger.org/2020/12/an-idea-for-theological-self-education/

Traditional employers might respect the official degree, but what if I don’t care about traditional employers?

Why not simply do the study for a particular degree in this way: you develop a portfolio (of some sort) with occasional help from experts, and then sit for a written and oral exam, and portfolio and thesis evaluation, by a panel of three more experts? Then when you say, “Oh, sure, I have an M.Div. But it is an Independent M.Div., or I.M.Div., granted by Jones, Smith, and Brown.” Assuming those three are well-known, then why shouldn’t this be respected as the equivalent of a traditional M.Div. that a thesis committee with those three on it would approve?  [...]  This might be revolutionary; but at this point, it is a revolution that I think needs to happen. We need to make the degree-granting process independent of giant, expensive, and increasingly totalitarian universities.

With this background it's not difficult to understand why a certain new administration wants to reduce or even drop student loans. Ideally, brainwashing to be made free or charge.