Kagro X has an interesting post about this subject at Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/4/102447/5427

His thoughts made me think more broadly about the state of our legislative branch. I don't think it's any coincidence that the President's initiating and ramming legislation through the Congress, like a gangster launders money through his restaurant, is happening during the same era that lobbyists are literally writing our legislation and sending it through a congressional sponsor. Even the term "sponsor" of legislation has a new meaning. Makes one think the list of a sponsors should include the various corporations, interest groups, and executive branch officials that are actually responsible for the proposal.

Essentially, our entire legislative branch, for which the First Article of our Constitution was reserved, has been co-opted by the executive branch and wealthy private interests - just about everything except the people it is supposed to represent. Any sense of the public interest is completely lost, indeed hardly even invoked rhetorically anymore.

I have to work with the garbage "legislation" these people put out. The congressional reports are often empty and unhelpful to understanding the legislation's purpose. The legislative history is often a blank slate, because often times our representatives don't even understand what it is they're codifying into law. Amendments drastically altering existing statutes get thrown in at the last second, without debate or review, and without most of the other members even knowing they exist. As the world's supposed shining example of representative democracy, this is an unmitigated embarrassment.

Now let's go through all the reasons informing the public is a really bad idea. Assume a plot involving LA is uncovered. Do you announce to LA it's the target of terrorist attack?

No.

The rest of your response is noise.

I can't tell you how disappointing it is to see [Glenn] ignore everything that Democrats have done to expose Republican corruption and fall into the trap of blaming them for wrongs the didn't have the power to prevent, and don't have the power to change.

I know Glenn can amply defend himself, but I feel the need to address this canard (and besides, Glenn might not have time to read through comments today).

Glenn is here talking about a bill passed by the Senate. This is an affirmative legislative action, rushed through the lawmaking process before the August recess, and completely within the Senate's power.

I was in the process of typing some thoughts on how I don't believe (some) Democrats' spinelessness on these issues warrants a third-party challenge, but then I thought: if the progressive base is outraged enough to threaten defection, perhaps this is just the medicine some Democrats need to get over their seriously skewed priorities. That is, after all, how the system was intended to work.

I do want to point out that Senators Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden all voted against the FISA "modernization" bill.

Secondly, it's high time that we abandoned our eighteenth-century, first-past-the-post system of voting in favor of some form of proportional representation or single-transferable voting system. Such reforms can be made at the state level without touching the federal constitution.

I've believed for some time that House members should be elected state-wide, or perhaps by only two or three districts in the larger states (straight-line-drawn districts in order to prevent the slates of candidates from getting unmanageable and impersonal). As you note, such a reform would be made by the state legislatures. Seats would be given to the candidates having the x-highest electoral support (x being the number of seats, of course). Each voter could pick only x number of candidates, and there would be rules for how many candidates each party could present.

This would mean that people could still vote for the most well-known candidates or parties, sure, but also have the freedom to select a popular or upstart name from another party or affiliation. If that upstart candidate could garner at least enough votes to secure the bottom of the highest x slots, he or she would get a seat. This would eventually have the net effect of not only more alternate-party politicians - but also those with truly alternate perspectives - getting into power and proving that they can govern as well as those from the two major parties (which in turn could enhance the chances of alternate candidates in Senate or even Presidential races).

There's more to the mechanics, of course, but I think this would solve a lot of our worst structural problems - gerrymandering, two-party hegemony, entrenchment of incumbancy, and so on. I'm aware that others in the legal and political communities have presented similar alternatives.

Therefore they have no reason whatsoever to pay the slightest attention to liberal voices. Why would they? They have your votes and your money and they know it.

But they should fire any political advisor of theirs that does not also point out the critical effect voter passion (i.e., turnout) has on close races.

Very good point about the potency of the message broadcast by one's actions over their rhetoric.

On a previous note, I think the Ned Lamont candidacy is highly instructive of what can and should happen to politicians who no longer represent their constituents' interests. If not for Lieberman's unbridled self-importance and refusal to step down when his own party rejected him, and the incredible weakness of the Republican challenger, Lamont would be the junior Senator from Connecticut today.

I do think widespread, energetic, grassroots-driven primary challenges can be a potent solution to entrenchment in our two-party system.