Well, yes, I know...I was being rhetorical. ;-) As I think you know.

You're right, McGrath, that it's complicated. It requires a fundamental change in people's concepts of political action, and that's not easy. The American revolutionaries took on the challenge of such a fundamental change when they proposed rebelling against the monarchy and replacing it with a Republic...they had to fight a war of several years duration. The French took on such a challenge when they had their revolution...and that was a terribly bloody affair. The Russians took on such a challenge in 1917, and the Cubans in the late 50's. In all those cases, it required war and revolution to sweep out the old and bring in the new.

It's true that monied interests can bribe individual candidates just as they can party candidates...but they would lack the advantage of having an established bureaucracy and party structure already in place through which to do their bribing. It wouldn't be quite as easy to control ALL the candidates...as some would resist the bribery.

The other thing that would have to be done to reform the system is this...I had forgotten to mention it:

All candidates would have to have their campaigns funded EQUALLY from a common public fund only....NO private or corporate donations to anyone's campaign allowed....NO use of private money allowed. All candidates would receive EXACTLY the same amount of $ funding to conduct their respective campaigns....they would all get the same amount of air time to express their views...and the campaign would be limited to a far shorter time period than at present (say 6 weeks, like in Canada).

By controlling the funding and providing equal funding and coverage in the media...BINGO! You have eliminated the sources of corruption. The candidates who presented the best qualities and the best ideas and platforms would win under such a system.

All of the above would, of course, be anathema to those running the present system, so I doubt that it could be achieved except after a revolution.