>Soooooo to give you an argument ad absurdum Don't know why it is absurd. Monarchies and dictatorships are forms of governments that either have been tried / s

>Soooooo to give you an argument ad absurdum Don't know why it is absurd. Monarchies and dictatorships are forms of governments that either have been tried / still in power. Longer terms is a possible solution. Think of house vs senate (2 vs 6 years). The house basically spends 50% of their time campaigning, because election year is every other year. >Maybe donors should be more humble, and be okay with an aid-to-the-legislator calling them for money? The largest donors aren't just humble, they're aggressively donating/investing their money into parties/people. Your suggestion to this is meant for people like Sanders who gains his donations from "normal" people instead of the rich. There isn't a solution I can think of. To the first point, when we talk about gov't and politics, we talk about power. The pull that power has on people, the wealth that can be attained, and human greed. There are pros and cons to different types of gov'ts. Single decision makers can change directions quickly, get things done faster, but fail faster too. Democracies are made to be slow with checks and balances, but sometimes it's too slow, can't adapt quick enough, and just because there are more people doesn't make it immune to corruption.