[ethbr1]

OTOH, ensuring our representatives are 100% beholden to us also means screaming in the next primary about every bipartisan deal made.

Which has the net effect of decreasing the ability to reach nobody-is-happy compromises.

Which is something else people say they want.

I'm unconvinced that private, smoke-filled backrooms don't have an essential place as the grease that keeps things running well.

[nonrandomstring]

> I'm unconvinced that private, smoke-filled backrooms don't have an essential place as the grease that keeps things running well.

I hear that, and there's a case for it. Diplomacy, maneuvering and negotiation require secrets and enclaves.

So to allow for that you need a few things;

  -  Strict official records of affairs

  -  Strong penalties for fraud, malinfluence, intimidation

  -  Whistleblower protection

The last of these essential checks-and-balances has gone to shit our culture. Even if we pardoned Edward Snowden and made him a "hero of democracy" tomorrow, it's still a mountain of work to restore the essential sense of civic responsibility, patriotism and duty that allows those people who discover or witness corruption to step-up and challenge it safe in the knowledge that the law and common morality are on their side.

[ethbr1]

Billions (the tv show), of all places, made a somewhat similar argument in favor of post-hoc investigations, in the last episode.

Record and share everything immediately = no room for deals

Record nothing = too much room for corruption

So we land at... record everything + only review with just cause + strict whistleblower protections.

Which seems a nice splitting of the matter, but requires a strong, independent third party (e.g. judicial branch) to arbitrate access requests. With tremendous pressure and incentives to breach that limit.