Thank you Larry for this insightful speculation into what could actually satisfy Sanders supporters.

I’d like our representatives in the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Executive to give us “fundamental reform” towards fixing our “corrupt system.”

Even modest efforts would be a step in the right direction. I don’t expect she will say, let alone do, anything significant in the very good direction you are proposing. We’ll have to see in the cases of her speech tonight, her remaining campaign, and if she wins, while she is in office.

I think the design of Constitution Two, and the way our system has evolved under its influence, provides lots of defenses against popular desires for more democratic outcomes. As you know, James Madison designed the Senate and its vast powers as a bulwark against the desires of most voting age, eligible Americans on June 26, 1787 when he said we needed the Senate “…to protect the opulent from the majority,” an idea he shared with Alexander Hamilton and many of the others at that convention. I side with George Mason and Patrick Henry (at the VA ratification convention) who severely objected to the amending process because it excluded the people from any direct involvement, something Madison was quite happy with (see Federalist 63).

For real “fundamental reform” we, the people of America, will need to both critique the eighteenth-century design of Constitution Two, and seek to fix it with a set of democracy amendments or Constitution Three.

If anything, the way the Democratic Party treated you when you met the Party’s standards for the debates, only for them to change those standards after you met them, is evidence that the system we have has great immunity to innovation. And that was by design. For Madison also said on 06–26–1787 that we needed a government, “to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation” in order to prevent the “leveling” of wealth and power.

What would actually be required to fix our system Larry so the policies of the government were to roughly match the opinions of the opinions of the American people in an iterative process of continuous learning by the citizenry?