The proper standard to judge a system genuinely, irretrievably, broken would require demonstrable proof that it cannot be affected by the people because: First, for “the people” to be capable would require they be an aggregated population, representative of the whole and coherent. This is elementary for incoherent, unrepresentative populations couldn’t produce representative, coherent results. Therefore, the first thing that must be established is whether anything stops a vigilant portion of a whole people with these characteristics and intentions from assembling. As of now, in the United States, even under what is perhaps historic duress, there is not. The second is the nature of the system in which they operate, and what it does and does not allow to happen; feasibly. Although labeled democratic, parliamentary democracies are excellent examples of a system so difficult to penetrate and affect that, to consider them broken (unworkable from the perspective of the people) would not be an overstatement; and for a simple reason. Such systems Party Membership vs. Party Registration

This is because such democracies and the parties that operate within them have varied and complex methods for selecting candidates. The bodies that make these decisions can be considered a "selectorate".

To be a member of a party and participate as a selector might require the citizen to pay fees, attend a certain number of meetings, take loyalty oaths, or cast their vote in an inconvenient, distant location; amongst many other changeable and restrictive arrangements.

The slate of candidates they might be choosing from could originate from that party’s leadership – and therefore represent a pre-selection of those candidates – or, could subject the selectorates choice to an ultimate approval by the party hierarchy; in either case rendering their power of choice fairly toothless. rely on political parties to represent the people, not individual candidates or members. Candidates represent the party in a place, not the people of that place, because they owe their access to the electoral ballot to their party; not the people. If successful, the candidates, of course then become members of the elected body but, it is only the party that is truly ‘chosen’ by the people because the candidates owed their place on the ballot – and therefore a de facto nomination – to that party. It is from this originating source of authority where political parties that operate within electoral systems derive their power. This in essence creates an “allegiance affect” that makes the candidate/member a spokesperson or representative of the party, not the people. This also makes parties difficult to impossible to penetrate as the citizens of such systems would have to quit their day jobs en masse and get into politics and win elections en masse in order to penetrate and affect that system. Not very feasible is it? If an individual or even several were inclined to do so, they would nonetheless be operating in a machine system that would make it very difficult for their preferred, representative, actions to gel and stick. That machine system will also create stronger interests and ties http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-economic-policy-was-essentially-the-same-as-tories-at-election-says-jeremy-corbyn-10385885.html

https://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/big-parties-big-money/2005/07/24/1122143730993.html amongst the parties themselves – and their benefactors – than with their constituents so, getting parties that present actual choices that will then actually happen is another layer of “systemic breakage”. This is the polar opposite of how the American system functions In the United States, by law, and for over a century, the selectorate are the people. They are simply registered to vote – that’s all – and may even have not have registered with a preferred party designation. They can then cast their deciding nominating votes in an open, simple, primary election or caucus that in most cases does not restrict that vote by party designation. – at least at its core. All things electoral emanate from ballot access, and when it is open – as it uniquely is in the U.S.A. – a political party necessarily has only what power the people give it; by the quality of their participation. The late 19th and early 20th century reforms of open ballot access and the direct primary was specifically intended to create this very weakening of the major political parties in favor of the electorate. It was then, and remains today, a highly consequential and controversial decision. The stated intentions of the reformers suggested that the people would now be able to easily assemble, choose, support, nominate and elect their representatives. Penetration – and therefore their ongoing supervision of – public affairs would be made practicable. No longer would the “iron rule of oligarchy” https://www.britannica.com/topic/iron-law-of-oligarchy rule! Those who opposed it did so on the grounds that “the people” (their emphasis) would certainly lack the sophistication and motivation necessary to use these powers. They argued that without the filter of powerful, organized political parties, there would be a power vacuum sure to be filled by agenda driven forces under the pretense of democracy (direct) and a disingenuous populist call for the rule of the people. Henry Jones Ford, noted political scientist of the era: Events have certainly played out as Ford suggested. This reform, with the people unwilling or unable to use this power wisely, merely created a new set of circumstances and politicians; the contemporary players of the money, media election complex. Interestingly, Ford also had these comments: Given the depth, length and damage done by the corruption of the central party machine model - “the spoils system” – the call for radical change was indeed justified. Given the depth of the failure of the progressive democratic reforms a century out; a healthy transformation remains necessary. But the problem remains the same: how can power be arranged so that politicians (in all their forms) cannot disarrange the constitutional arrangement?

• Disingenuous or not, the reformers had it right.
• Elitist or not, so did the opponents of those changes.

Nevertheless, what should be clear is that while the question of “the people” may remain unresolved from an intellectual standpoint, it is now being answered for them; forcefully and perhaps finally. Yet, ironically what these reforms promised then are even more achievable today in the age of the Internet. Now, to use this authority, to create the counterweight and make the constitutional ideal work more perfectly, there is no need for people to make major life changes or for the unfeasible organizing of vast and diversified peoples over vast and diversified geographies. However, without the considered participation of the aggregated, representative “the people” in the early process, where their decisive power sits, the ambitions of these reforms cannot be realized. With no “just balance” as Ford put it, you will have a de facto parliamentary system in all ways that matter; hence a “broken system”.