I'm not sure if this will make sense, but... When you elect someone in office and you want them to do something, often they will sit in office for however many years and when the time of accountability comes they will shrug their shoulders and complain about how the opposition kept getting in their way. In this case...what's the point of electing them? Why not just go directly to the opposition and strike your deals since they will be the ones who have the ability to make your proposition pass smoothly or not. In other words, elections aren't really very good methods of change. You vote for someone and hope they follow through and if they don't they can give any number of plausible reasons as to why things haven't changed. But by going to the opposition and assuring them victory if they can assure you change, then it seems a much smarter use of your time and effort. Exactly how this would occur I don't know, but in terms of voting or effort spent campaigning for your ideas, be business-like. it's better to pay and receive than pay for the chance to receive.
In BOLD above it sounds like the solution is to place an electrical charge in their seats and if they don't move within 5 minutes 110 volts streams through their genitals for 5 seconds. One thing about a healthy working democracy IMO is the requirement that all the voters and the representatives need to be able to fathom 'what's in the best interest of the USA'? As long as ALL of us are self-serving, greedy, and biased...in other words stupid, thinking ONLY of ourselves, what we are seeing today will only deteriorate over time. I don't believe average Americans possess the intellect to do better. I think we are seeing on display proof of our severe limitations. It's going to be a very bumpy ride...
If our elected Representatives would focus more on achieving wins for their constituency, and less on preventing their opposition from achieving wins for theirs, our country would be a lot better off.
