We have all of the say. We just aren't talking in the way that matters. Huge portions of the public fail to vote. While the presidential election brought out ~55%, that's hardly the important step. The primaries are way, way more important.

Did you know that in many states you can participate in primaries of multiple parties?

Did you know that most primaries get a pittance of voter participation?

"We" are not participating. Period. That is why we can't condemn this form of government. We're not even doing it.

Our culture is what's broken. No longer do we think about doing the right thing or helping others, we think about winning. We no longer consider debate and discourse signs of humanity and intelligence and civilization.

The Russians didn't force ~45% of eligible voters to be apathetic, nor did they force the DNC to rig the game against Bernie Sanders or make people protest vote against Hillary Clinton. The system is fucked in all kinds of ways but the only people responsible for that particular mess are the non-voters themselves: they gave the 55% a much louder voice. The rest is the kind of influencing that happens everywhere, when every country is trying to serve its best interests.

Russia, Mexico, immigration, capitalism, Democrats/Republicans...all of these are to some extent scapegoats so the people of the US don't have to take a deep look at themselves and realise that the change needs to come from within. As the saying goes, if everybody else is the problem...

These issues are a concern, but, you're acting like there was some major political landslide against rational thought when in reality the majority of voters in USA voted for Clinton.

Trump only won due to an anachronistic loophole, taking the election by a few thousand votes at max. All it would've taken is a small increase in participation and the statistical weight in favor of a Trump loss would've guaranteed that outcome.

I could provide a laundry list of issues facing society even if only limited to civics. However, we'd not be in this predicament right now if 1% more voters went to the polls.

This statement makes no sense unless you consider every action in the world to be deterministic

The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people. They were originally supposed to be the bulwark against the "rapid" (2-year) change of the House of Representatives to prevent mob rule. That is, until we amended the Constitution to make them elected by popular vote.

There are far more representatives in Congress than Senators, to the tune of almost 3:1, which is still too low.

The way we fix this is by fixing our local governments first. The States determine the number of Representatives based upon their districting and constitutions.

The answer is to fight to fix the districting and run as a representative.

It's funny you're being downvoted. How is it not in everyone's (except those currently exploiting the system) best interest to increase their share of representation?

You aren't being fair to the Senators of large states that represent tens of millions of people.

I think your thesis is not correct though, the senate is less dysfunctional than the house, at least partly because they each answer to a broad constituency.

Maybe we could let people decide for themselves who represents them, that way they can choose someone they trust to do the job correctly.