You know this is so. Why, then, this emphasis on a 3rd party? That'll accomplish nothing; it would merely redirect the monied lobbyist types to that 3rd party, and we'd be back to where we started.

I am not emphasizing 3rd parties as an answer. I am saying that if you are going to waste time, effort and money why not do it away from the establishment rather than playing into their hands by playing their game on their turf? If you are going to go with an ancillary action for change through the voting booth why not really let them know you are no longer interested in their bullshit? Supporting and voting for the Dem brand, regardless of how much better you think your candidate is, is still supporting "them" in the end.

This is why I think GG has the correct prescription: if you make individual politicians aware that you're onto them, that you're monitoring them, that you can wield that cudgel known as money, they're not going to much care what the party leadership has to say about certain policies--that politician will be intensely interested in securing his seat in the next election.-- Timothy3

A) The party as a whole doesn't care if we are "on to them" and that is what matters. So you unseat a few politicians. The corrupt party leadership will shrug and move on. They will marginalize and or compromise your better versions. It is a never ending cycle. And B) Putting aside for the moment the disgusting nature of your premise - that we should have to fork over yet more of our individual, limited resources in order to "encourage" our PUBLIC SERVANTS to do the right thing or even just a marginally better job of listening to us - putting that aside - We can never wield the cudgel known as money as effectively as their corporate overseers can. It's a lose, lose and lose some more proposition. Where does it end? how much money am I going to have to fork over? How long will it take Tim? Answer the bold portion of my first post to this thread. Answer it for yourself.

Our experiment with Democracy simply cannot withstand a de facto two-party system where only one party has ANY interest in governing.

-- NorCalNative

Neither of them has any interest in governing. They have an interest in maintaining their place and carrying out their corporate overseers demands. They have no interest in the wants/needs of the people. Their job, as they see it, is to keep the people placated as best they can so that the status quo of rape and pillage can be continued.

Our experiment with a representative republic is on deaths door. It can be rehabilitated and made to serve but that is going to take more than electing better politicians. Attempting to elect better politicians is nothing new. It does not bring about change given the level of corruption within the system. As such it should be treated as the "side project" that it is. It is not a strategy for change. It is not an answer.

Whatever makes them realize that they'll pay a real price for doing what they're doing should be considered.

-- GlennGreenwald

But "they" (the Democratic party) won't pay a price. An individual politician might but the party as a whole will not.

Explain it to us. PLEASE. How does the party as a whole pay a price when a few of their incumbents lose each election cycle? They care because they might lose their majority - their power? They lose the power to do what? The power to enact laws for "the people?" The power to hold lawlessness accountable? WHAT?