[freeopinion]

Some among the US founding fathers argued that such was inevitable. The only plausible solution, they posited, was to encourage even more lobbying. The only thing that could protect the democracy from special interests was, well, special interests. Competing special interests. The only hope was to set them against each other.

[rapnie]

Radical transparency enforced by rules would also come a long way. The electorate would be outraged if they knew about the extent of lobbying to their representatives. It would allow them to put public pressure where it is due.

[Shared404]

This would be the most beneficial thing, I think. I do find the idea of competing special interest groups intriguing, but what do you do when one wins?

[freeopinion]

Endure.

One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter. Endure, regroup, retool, resurge.

[Shared404]

> One is always winning. Some victories last a long time. Others are shorter.

Excellent point. The optimist and pessimist in me are at odds about this concept, I have a hard time believing that there are enough people who would endure long enough to make a difference.

However, there is a good chance that I am wrong, and I will try to hold on to it.

Edit: I'll have to be going offline now, or I'll never actually sleep. Thank you for the excellent discussion, this is why I'm on HN.