There's so much mistrust and doubt that it's hard to see a solution that would satisfy all when it comes to communicating political processes with the public. S

There's so much mistrust and doubt that it's hard to see a solution that would satisfy all when it comes to communicating political processes with the public. Sure, we all might prefer for the process to be open, to have edits and additions recorded together with the "who" in some kind of revision system, but would we then trust those who maintain the repository? If we do; who would then be trusted to read through the 600 page document and give an objective report on it's content? Because it has to be viewed in context, right? Not just a single paragraph used as click bait to up the advertising revenue. Who would we agree on should be considered a "real journalist"? It's tricky. We fear what we don't know and distrust those who do. A dreamy solution would be a system that allows politicians to comment on laws and voters to assign and re-assign points to those they agree with. Voters wouldn't decide laws but be able to show their support for different view points which we could graph over time and match against politicians votes. But, yeah, internet voting is equally tricky.