It is well known we have a system that no longer works for the people! 

On the right, we now have a "hard core" with beliefs that are so out of touch with reality, they seldom make sense!  On the left, we have a mixture so diverse it is difficult to obtain a majority to do anything. 

Both sides are so influenced by power groups, money, and lobbies you cannot believe most of what they say! 

Things can be done to fix this problem but the odds of getting them done are pretty slim, "and slim left town". 

The first that should be done is to set term limits for all the members of the Senate and the House.  If this were done, they would spend less time worrying about getting elected and spend more time running this government.             

Term limits of (3) two-year terms for the Senate and (2) four-year terms for the House.

The terms for the Senate could be established whereby half the Senate seats would be up for election on even numbered years and the other half up for election on odd numbered years.

The terms for the House would run on even years offset from the Presidential election by two years. 

For example, half the seats for the House would be up for election in 2010; the other half would be up for election in 2012.  This would repeat in 2014 for the House members elected in 2010 and 2016 for the members elected in 2012.  The Presidential elections would remain as they are now.

This would give the Senate less longevity and less opportunity to develop major partisan power like they have now.  This is necessary to stop the paralysis in the Senate.  The Senate, as it is now, is not a representative form of government.

Consider the fact that Senators from very small states such as Wyoming, Montana, N. & S. Dakota, and Vermont have the same power as Senators from the very large states such as New York, California, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  Throw in the concept of longevity in the Senate, and you have a Senator from a very small state "running the show", as it is now, and the system makes even less sense.

I know the founding fathers thought this made sense but that was a very different time and a very different world!  They could not have forseen the bottleneck the Senate has now become.

(Some might say the bottle neck is good.  It helps prevent "rash" moves or ideas.  That may have been true but not any more).  

These term limits would allow public financing to be used for the elections. 

Making this change would certainly weaken and minimize the influence of the power brokers and lobbies!  How much money would you spend on a representative who may only be available for two years or four years?

The argument might be made that House members are only elected for two years in the current system.  That is true but these seats are monopolized by money and power groups through the extensive financing of specific member campaigns.

It is well known that it is virtually impossible to win a seat unless you are very well financed.  Public financing would eliminate that problem altogether.

Some would say the money would not be enough.  I disagree!  If everyone had the same amount of money the system would be fair.  If a particular candidate cannot manage their campaign with the funds provided, they will lose the election! 

They probably should lose the election. If they cannot manage a campaign, how are they going to help manage the country!

Finally, who is going to change the Constitution in this way?  The politicians we have now?  Not a chance!  They won't even vote for bills that make sense; how could we get them to vote to eliminate their jobs!   

The only possible way I could see is by national referendum.  Given today's technology that should not be such a big mystery to solve.