Another thought-provoking article, Chuck, thanks - I've pre-ordered your book, btw.
Proverbs 28:2 states "For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged." This scripture increasingly describes the problem and the remedy for the UK and evidently the US as well. Once again, I note that it is interesting how your Declaration of Independence goes back to Magna Carta (Great Charter), 1215, drafted to bring an errant monarch to heel. The framers of the Declaration of Independence were learned men and probably had Magna Carta in mind when they wrote against despotism, whether from an individual king or an overbearing parliament - England's greatest statesman, Oliver Cromwell, fought against the same kind of tyranny when he dissolved the corrupt 'long' (sitting) parliament in 1653.
Article 61 of Magna Carta - the famous enforcement clause - requires four of the quorum of barons to take any grievances or petitions to the monarch, and admonishes the people to rise up against the monarch if and when such grievances are not corrected:
"And if we [i.e. the king, using the 'royal plural'] shall not have corrected the transgression…within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us…the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain [seize goods from] and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit."
It's almost as if those Medieval barons and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, who actually wrote the Charter, had July 4th 1776 in mind...

Mr. Norris; there is a reason why the congress does not work for the people. It isn't supposed to. Long ago the house of representives limited their number for their own ease; but the effect has been more and more people represented by a relatively small number. The Constitution offers a number, purely a suggestion it seems, for no less than one representative for every thirty thousand. Fair enough. One man may fairly and accurately represent 30 thousand, and have some idea who they are and what their concerns might be. The reason happiness with congress has evaporated over the years is that more and more it reflects our will less and less. Every birth and every new citizen cuts our representation by just so much. The Senate makes no pretense of democracy. The small states have the same Senators as the large. But the people's house should answer to the people's voice like a good and obediant dog. You know house districts are gerrymandered to support one party or the other, and this results in vast numbers having no representative of their choice because some districts are given to the party in power, hands down, with a reliable majority. Considering that there is only one body in congress that was intended to be democratic, and to express the will of the people, isn't it strange to hope for solutions from that body once it has been cut off from democracy? What ever is the number today in house districts, perhaps 280000; they are first of all divided, and then too great in number to be well represented by single representatives. The division of this people is not the fault of the people, but of our parties which are an unofficial part of our constitution. They win and we lose. And what it takes to overcome the inertia of party when change is needed is so great a force as to make revolution inevitable. Is that what the right wants? Is that what the left wants? I think we all just want our democracy to work, and the wrench of party has it all jambed up. Sweeney