> We, the population, vote for the persons with specific political wills. We choose what to enact.

Except that this is far from the reality.

We elect people with specific views but they seem to vote regardless of their constituent interests, let alone their supporters’. Instances of this fact are very easily searchable online.

https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

You want me to believe that the majority of constituents represented by these 193 republican representatives are against an insulin price cap?

https://images.dailykos.com/images/1054844/story_image/FPNbI...

My newest advocacy addresses this problem.

I call it “extend the powers of justice by jury”.

The idea that these representatives can just vote without accountability is absurd, and clearly a weakness money has uncovered in the US political system. (I refuse the claim status quotitians make that “elections are accountability“)

My suggestion is elected representatives act as litigators to their side of the argument and they need to make their claim to a jury overseen by a judge. That jury determines if a bill passes.

Who you elect as your representatives still matters, but now their ability to litigate persuasively is the number one quality of consideration when choosing those representatives.

This should remove the power that money has in bills being passed, as well as completely remove the “rider compromises” where officials compromise by including unrelated clauses to encourage the passing of a bill.

I want a representative government and I think expanding the powers of justice by jury will help in further enshrining that goal in our political systems.