Can the electoral system be used to effect meaningful change?
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) deserve credit for helping elect some vaguely "progressive" sounding politicians, but in general their candidates conspicuously don't commit to supporting any concrete policies, and the result is that when they obtain office they tend to quickly become part of the old boys network they decried as candidates.
Suppose there was an organization similar to DSA, but one that required candidates to support key process reforms, as well as refuse PAC money and contributions from foreign interests. Reforms such as:
- Members of Congress required to place investment holdings in a blind trust, with an absolute ban on stock trading while in office.
- Forbid ex-members of Congress from becoming lobbyists for at least 12 years after leaving office.
- End gerrymandering by requiring an independent commission to redraw Congressional districts.
I'd be interested to know if members of this community think that focusing on structural reform, as well as extracting specific commitments from candidates before making an endorsement, would lead to greater accountability from politicians, as well as greater focus on issues that matter to ordinary citizens.