This is overly generalizing a complex issue. In America, we have a two party system that has basically been taken over by lobbying and gerrymandering. Both sides are different socially, but identical fiscally. Propaganda has been spread massively, amplifying everyone's natural us-vs-them mentality. Plus the populist politician on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, was suppressed and basically not allowed to be the candidate. Our problems are a lot worse than "but poor people vote for the Bad Guys!"
What matters is what the two sides accomplish, not what they say they're going to do. In the US, when the Republicans are in charge, Democrats hem and haw about how they need to do all this stuff differently from the Repubs, but when they're in charge, it doesn't happen. See Obama and friends in '08. Then with the presidential candidate, they chose the one with the $250,000 speaking fees at all the major banks instead of choosing the one who spoke of inequality in the country.
It doesn't sound like even you believe they are both the same, certainly you've provided no evidence that is the case in your response.
You'd just prefer if the Democrats were even more towards your preference on fiscal matters. I can agree with that, whether it would fly with the American voters sufficiently to overcome the rural/republican tilt is another matter entirely.
In my opinion, the Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, focusing on divisive social issues and not on actually helping the country. What I would truly like is voter reform allowing for more than a two-party system. I feel that the current system leads naturally to corruption and favoring corporate needs.
I believe that all systems eventually lead to corruption. All rules can be gamed somehow, the quality of the ruleset is how long it takes for people to discover the necessary manipulations. Given the age, the US had a pretty good run.
Maybe occasional rewrites could be a solution, but if they happen without the customary devastating violence, I'm afraid that the rewrite would only further entrench existing corruption (and even devastating violence is far from a guarantee that this won't happen, quite the opposite actually).
Maybe have a dozen or so mixed teams create separate drafts in isolation, vote out the worst half and then select one of the remaining by chance? Something along these lines might greatly help rewriters to forget about their own personal or group interests for a while and focus on what would be good for society as a whole. It's most likely just a theoretical design, right?
