Representative government requires the democratic process.
Democracy, in theory, results in an authority derived from the bottom up. All other forms of government sustain authority from the top-down.
Currently, the major political parties, Democrats and Republicans, control the government by filtering candidates for public office through their top down organizations, making the government inherently undemocratic.
Once a candidate is elected they must oblige to the top down party rules written and practiced by the political parties. Introducing bills, controlling debate, committee assignments, virtually all functions of government are controlled by two competing top-down authorities which results in a process where the majority can be overruled.
The democratic process as outlined in the Constitution makes no mention of political parties. The Constitution provides for representation based on geography and population, not party affiliation.
That democratic process should now be expanded to consider each voter's level of income and allow voters to elect candidates from their own tax brackets. This could be achieved with a new apportionment act.
The government could be much more representative of the population with a new apportionment act as described in "Income-based Representation".
The intention of the Constitution is to provide a representative government of, by, and for the people, which requires the democratic process. Protecting and defending that process is the primary responsibility of government. Government officials pledge to protect and defend the constitution in order to protect us from those, whether foreign or domestic, who would deny us democratic representation.
Government is not the problem. The problem is that the government is occupied by private interest representatives working against democratic reforms. They resist a more representative government for incumbency and party control. But, history shows if pressured enough both parties will move, reluctantly, towards positive change.
The major political parties that monopolize the path to public office are the obstruction to the necessary democratic reforms that could achieve a more representative government. The major parties have, intentionally or not, worked together against democratic reform.
One way to move towards a more representative government would be to abandon primary elections altogether and remove party affiliation from general election voter guides and bring it all online.
In the recent 'non-binding' presidential primary here in Washington state, the government actually made voters declare party affiliation on the outside of the ballot envelope, which only included Republicans and Democrats. On the inside was a 'security' envelope for the 'secret' ballot, which I'm sure moved many to not participate at all.
Personally, I normally vote for Democrats. It was a pleasure voting for Jim McDermott for the past couple decades. I disagreed with him on some votes but comparatively, he has been an outstanding representative. It will be difficult for any candidate to practice the candor and conviction of principles that Jim demonstrated as my representative.
In the current presidential election, Donald Trump could be more trustworthy than Hillary Clinton on a number of issues, in my opinion. Hillary can't be trusted on matters of war and trade which are very important. I also believe any candidate that takes money from Wall Street should not be trusted. She campaigned around the country in little special interest group fundraisers. A campaign tactic championed by Republicans.
I don't know if I can trust Trump, but I blame the Democrats for making me even think about it, because they chose Hillary over Bernie, which I consider a historical blunder of 'uge proportions. Bernie's appearances in Seattle were the largest political rallies we've ever seen here, without any support from our state's democratic delegation.
The Republicans are blatantly anti-American as far as I'm concerned. They are globalists wrapping family values around policies of conflict, debt, inequality, and bad trade deals. Their best recruitment tool is their opposition, the Democrats. They are collectively a perfect example of why party politics should be discarded into the dark ages of history.
Trump and Hillary have shattered traditional party allegiances and logic, which exposes party loyalty as counterproductive to democracy if not outright obsolete.
I have decided to participate in this election without party affiliation as a protest vote against party politics. I believe party allegiance subverts elected officials from acting independently. Candidates are beholden to party money, and if elected, they are beholden to their party, for the most part.
The private parties pretend they are not the government as they control every aspect of it. They need donations from the public to campaign, they say, because the public doesn't want to afford publicly financed elections. This practice results in politicians beholden to private interest money and a government by an for those who can afford it.
The results of the current private party policies are democratic decay and increased inequality, which leads to more conflict, regardless of which candidates win.
In this election cycle, the top-down duopoly party process has resulted in presidential candidates that will guarantee an escalation of conflict, as usual.
In the coming election you can't vote for an anti-war candidate. You can only vote for an apparent war monger candidate or a candidate that promises more war. Regardless of who wins, expect the violence to escalate.
I believe party affiliation should be removed from the ballot entirely. This would help prevent partisan politics and require voters to understand the candidate's positions on issues. This would be a step up from what we are currently doing, but not nearly as good as an issue based vote, cross-referenced to a list of candidates who agree or disagree with the voter. You know it's coming sooner or later.
Representative government would have candidates endorse specific legislation and then if they are elected, be obligated to vote their pledges.
I also believe the party rules should be retired and the parties themselves phased out. Imagine concerns of voter ID to prevent people from casting an illegal vote that might effect election outcomes when so-called super-delegates can cast votes at the conventions that are equivalent to thousands of people voting. It's really quite absurd.
The nation's allegiance should be to the democratic process and freedom of speech, first and foremost, as is required by law. Unity of purpose is assumed and expected in the Constitution, unlike the factionalism as practiced by the major political parties.