The USA is in big trouble. The source of that trouble is the fact that our system of political representation has been corrup ted and fails to represent the interest of the general public. Many of us have an idea or two about changes to laws and regulations that should be made. However, changes that serve the interest of we the people have no chance of being implemented unless they fit with the agenda of those who rule. The instrument of control used by those who rule is the power possessed by the two political parties.

Those who rule TELL legislators and executives what to do. Following orders insures retention regardless of what else one does. If orders are not obeyed discharge will follow. Most often discharge of elected politicians is effected by withholding campaign funds from the party employee to be fired and then creating an opponent and supplying funds to the new hire. All party candidates are selected from those likely to follow orders.

Evidence to support my thesis is contained in a detailed examination of the voting to pass the unpopular GATT and NAFTA measures. Those that rule wanted these two bills passed. Suspend for a moment your positions on GATT and NAFTA and focus on the method used to gain passage. Examination shows an unusual voting pattern. Yeas and nays are scattered across the political spectrum. Normally you find more than 90%, if not 100%, of each side of a vote tally was cast by members of one party. Not the case for GATT and NAFTA. Here the process to decide who voted yea and who voted nay produced a different pattern. It was the same within each house. Members districts were ranked as to the expected damage due to a yes vote on these unpopular bills. Members highest on the list were allowed to vote no, up to the limit allowing passage. The rest were commanded to vote yes. This approach is used whenever an unpopular measure is forced to pass. The success of this method is evidenced by the few yeas for unpopular bills who are defeated when they next run.

Think of those who rule as a holding company with two subsidiary corporations. Those two held corporations are the Republicats and the Demoblicans. Each election “We The People” are offered the choice between two employees of held corporations. Some choice. A law maker should be the employee of those in the district represented. The chief executive should be selected in a reasoned process representing the interests of the nation as a whole. The current system is designed to make us believe there is an actual contest for who shall rule and that we the people decide.

The board of directors for each coroporation/party are the same individulas.

The leaders of each party are not among those who rule. They are the equivalent of CEOs of subsidiary corporations serving at the pleasure of the holding company or the Ruling Trust to phrase it in late nineteenth century economic terms. Plutocrats is a proper term for those who rule. Names will be supplied in a subsequent chapter. For now I want the focus to be on function and not on personalities.

How do we set right the ship of state? To right it we must first understand how the selection of elected officials was meant to function and then learn how it was corrupted.

The creators of our Constitution, recognizing the partisanship fostered by political parties, rejected a parliamentary system as used in England. They chose a system of two legislative houses without executive responsibility. A house to represent the interests of the people and a house to represent the interests of the states. They added an independent executive not requiring a political party for selection or support.

The reasons that a parliamentary system was rejected are related to the absence or requirement for political parties. In a nation run by a parliament the government falls if the leader fails to hold a majority. To hold this majority the leader must process powers of political control. Top down political control comes from an organized political party. Those who rule a political party select or approve who will stand for election.

The principles and logic of the political philosophy of Sovereignism shaped all that was created in our Federal Constitution. The definitions, principles and logic of Sovereignism need to be stated to guide us in analysis of what has happened and in the design of what we must do.

A sovereign is the one who decides, thus the one who controls. A sovereign can be a person or an organization. Our revolution had replaced the sovereignty of King George with the sovereignty of the people.

Total sovereignty held by all is anarchy. So in the interest of peace, safety and order the people must delegate sovereignty over law making, law enforcement, disputes and defense. This delegated power to decide is assigned to City, County, State and Federal governments. The people obtain, in exchange, the collective power of selecting who will represent their interests in the bodies and positions receiving the delegated sovereignty. The elected are then responsible to care for the interests of those they represent.

The sad tale of how this “people's power of selection” was stolen by the political parties is a story of how a corruption of political power evolves bit by bit until the original design is only a facade. It is also a tale of how failed assumptions and crucial missing details of our Constitution allowed such a corruption.