Two Party System

Of course, some of the founders also objected to a 2 party system.  I believe Washington was one who thought that candidates should run on their own, not backed by a party.  Of course, he also started out seeing the president as taking his cues from the congress.  But he soon decided that congress was too contentious to have the president following them (and clearly that has not really changed).

As for term limits, all people really need to do is to vote out their representatives if they are unhappy with the state of affairs.  If they like how things are going, then they can keep their rep.  Which is why there is so much pork in the system - since it is only pork if it goes to other people. 

I think the bigger corrosive element is the huge amounts of cash devoured by the political machinary. It is why we need usually to have either a large political party to bankroll the candidate, or to have someone who is independently wealthy (and really, that means they have less connection to the majority of voters, and less incentive to meet anyone's needs IRL - just to create enough ads to make it SEEM like they do). Frankly, I believe that with the recent supreme court decision (last year) to grant corporations status as people for political speech, we are effectively shutting out the voices of the majority, in favor of the moneyed classes. If you can figure out a way to eliminate the cash (shortening the campaign season, perhaps? Limited the amount of money from ALL sources that can be spent on political ads? Seem unrealistic), you might solve the problems more readily.

I would argue that the problem is more the half-way measures we take in this country.  If you imagine that the candidates are selected by the party, and then have to follow the party line more "officially", it would make a lot of sense to vote the party you felt met your needs.  Then people would be more involved in the design of the party platform. It would be harder to have negative personal attacks, since the only issue is whether party A is going to do X or Y.  It would be more honest than having, say Republicans say they will balance the spending, then increasing the debt 2-3 times; or Democrats say they will ensure healthcare access to all, then water down the bill to the point of meaninglessness - we all will end up in both scenarios paying more of our money to a black hole with no real clear benefits. And I think it would be more practical to say the candidates represent the party platform than to eliminate the party themselves.

You could have people vote in primaries for the party person; or have the party use the old smoke-filled room approach.  But the votes would go to the party, not the person.  And if the person does not do what the party has said they would do, they can be recalled and replaced.

Of course, some of the founders also objected to a 2 party system.  I believe Washington was one who thought that candidates should run on their own, not backed by a party.  Of course, he also started out seeing the president as taking his cues from the congress.  But he soon decided that congress was too contentious to have the president following them (and clearly that has not really changed).

As for term limits, all people really need to do is to vote out their representatives if they are unhappy with the state of affairs.  If they like how things are going, then they can keep their rep.  Which is why there is so much pork in the system - since it is only pork if it goes to other people. 

I think the bigger corrosive element is the huge amounts of cash devoured by the political machinary. It is why we need usually to have either a large political party to bankroll the candidate, or to have someone who is independently wealthy (and really, that means they have less connection to the majority of voters, and less incentive to meet anyone's needs IRL - just to create enough ads to make it SEEM like they do). Frankly, I believe that with the recent supreme court decision (last year) to grant corporations status as people for political speech, we are effectively shutting out the voices of the majority, in favor of the moneyed classes. If you can figure out a way to eliminate the cash (shortening the campaign season, perhaps? Limited the amount of money from ALL sources that can be spent on political ads? Seem unrealistic), you might solve the problems more readily.

I would argue that the problem is more the half-way measures we take in this country.  If you imagine that the candidates are selected by the party, and then have to follow the party line more "officially", it would make a lot of sense to vote the party you felt met your needs.  Then people would be more involved in the design of the party platform. It would be harder to have negative personal attacks, since the only issue is whether party A is going to do X or Y.  It would be more honest than having, say Republicans say they will balance the spending, then increasing the debt 2-3 times; or Democrats say they will ensure healthcare access to all, then water down the bill to the point of meaninglessness - we all will end up in both scenarios paying more of our money to a black hole with no real clear benefits. And I think it would be more practical to say the candidates represent the party platform than to eliminate the party themselves.

You could have people vote in primaries for the party person; or have the party use the old smoke-filled room approach.  But the votes would go to the party, not the person.  And if the person does not do what the party has said they would do, they can be recalled and replaced.