[chao-]

I completely agree, so please take this as an explanation and elucidation rather than a criticism: The concept of merely "demanding change" is unlikely to result in change, unless the term "demanding" includes actions that would result in significant disruption of economics and daily life (in which case that is an entirely different discussion).

The core piece in dampening a desire for change, in my thinking anyway, is the two-party system. Both parties are complicit and supportive of all this nonsense by an overwhelming internal majority. Outliers who join third parties are historically unsuccessful and outliers as candidates within the Democratic and Republican parties are rare. Even if you are lucky enough to have the chance to vote for someone radically pro-transparency or pro-privacy in federal election, the following still apply:

1. They are likely new, and years away from being in a leadership position of an important committee (where real accountability and change might begin).

2. They often fall into line over time. If they buck the party too often, too publicly and on too central of an issue, it is possible that the party will support them less in future national elections.

3. Any legislation they introduce, if acceptable at all, might well be diluted by amendments and through the committee process. Our congress appears slow and deadlocked because, it is in some ways designed to be. That is not me saying I agree with that design decision, but again just shining a light on the point.

The two-party system is a barrier to expressing (electorally) desire for change beyond a certain delta from the status quo. A multi-party system, though it might be fraught with other issues, would go some distance toward representing more varied sets of concerns.

[dil8]

I completely agree... It has almost become impossible to 'demand change' from within the system, unless off course the change is within the acceptable norms.

[alexqgb]

Indeed. That's exactly why the system has gotten so far out of kilter. Muting or disabling the normal feedback loops has set the stage for the escalation of abuse that we've been witnessing ever since the banksters that cratered the economy got bonuses in place of prison terms.

The economy and state security are both suffering from a hugely captured Congress. The flip side is that regaining control of our legislators would mean solving myriad problems at once. Or at least, starting to address them in ways that make sense to and for the people.

Breaking this hold isn't a one shot deal. Rather, it requires dismantling four interlocking institutions which have, in combination, the toxic effect we're becoming acutely aware of.

Specifically, we need to open closed primaries, end partisan redistricting, switch from private campaign finance to public, and brick up the revolving door between the public and private sectors by placing a lifetime hellban on future employment of public officials by any private interest they've overseen.

Obviously, these reforms will make a stint in public office far less lucrative than it is right now, so there is a zero percent chance that Congress will initiate them freely. That means support for these reforms must become the primary condition for winning elected office in the first place.

I have no idea how to get a critical mass of Americans to single-mindedly enforce this condition. But I can't think of any other way for them to recover an essential measure of control over Congress. So that's the problem in a nutshell.