I said something about this a while back but I want to simplify it even further and get to what I currently believe to be the root, or at least a major part of the root, of the problem.
At the root is a problem. It is an uninspected problem for most of us but it is simply stated and hard not to see once pointed out. It is this; Most of us are in agreement, or at least consent to, two totally opposed political philosophies.
The first philosophy is that it is wrong to initiate the use of force against an otherwise peaceful person in order to get him to do your bidding. As an example you would probably object to someone threatening you with a gun and demanding your wallet. We all agree this would be a bad thing and would regard the person with the gun to be a criminal. So ask someone if they agree with this philosophy and the chances are pretty good they will say yes. But....
The second philosophy is consensus = truth and rightness. Democracy we are told is rule by majority vote. If an apparent majority vote for something then we all have to go along with it. I think this is workable for a small group when the subject of the vote is what movie to see or where to eat but applying it to an entire society and having no limit to what it can be applied to is somewhat extreme to say the least in my opinion.
If a group of your friends announced to you they had taken a vote and it had come out that a majority consider it necessary for you to give them half of your income to spend on whatever they pleased I suspect you would object to this. But on what grounds? Would you object because you weren't given a chance to contribute to the making of the proposition? Would it be because you don't agree with what the money will be spent on? Would it be because you consider only you should be able to decide how your money should be spent? Whatever your reason it would be in opposition to the idea of democracy as defined above.
Now maybe you would favour a democratically made decision when you are not part of the group whose wealth will be exploited. Maybe you'd be perfectly happy to take the earnings of another group of people you don't belong to. Maybe you consider it only right and fair to take what others have that you don't have. Here's the thing; In order for you to benefit from what others have put together that they aren't willing to just give away force has to be employed to get them to do it. Democracy allows you to feel no guilt about this for two reasons; First it isn't you who will be employing the force, and second, the majority agrees it is right and proper. But is it right and proper? How does a consensus amongst an apparent majority become right? If the only tool they can use to make it happen is the threat of violence against those who do not agree isn't this just another case of might making right. Does might make right? Personally I don't think so. Call me an extremist.
So how to solve this. Here is my suggestion for electoral reform that would be meaningful to all.
1. Government shall have no right under any circumstances to create fiat* money from thin air either through a central bank or by any other means. *Fiat money is anything (paper or coins or electronic entries) that only has value because the government says it has value and because there is confidence amongst the users that it will be exchanged for goods and services.
2. Government shall have no right to borrow money under any circumstances.
3. Government can raise money for any purpose it chooses as long as that money is given completely voluntarily.
4. Government may not keep records for any reason of who contributes or who does not contribute.
5. Anyone shall have the right to contribute or not contribute to anything he chooses and he can stop contributing or start contributing whenever he sees fit.
6. Anyone can call himself a member of the government by his own election alone.
A couple of additional considerations on the above.
It really doesn't matter who makes up the government. What matters is the consent of the people to any proposal that is made by that government. We do not live in a world where the active consent of each of us is sought or needed. But wouldn't it be a better world if it were?
It might seem that some people would not want to contribute to very much. This may well be the case. If that is their will then what justification could there be for overriding it?
Those government proposals that do meet with enough funding would truly be what the people want.