The American people would watch as wikiarguments for each side evolve and do battle on the Internet. Our representatives would not be able to fool us with deceptions because any evasions, flaws, speciousness, or other deceptions would be promptly emphasized in the corresponding opposing wikiarguments, which would be posted on the Internet for the entire world to see.
But unreasonable bills are often supported by both political parties because both are typically bribed by the same big money. How would a WikiArguments system force our representatives to post honest arguments against such unreasonable bills? By providing two additional - pro and con - shadow wikiarguments for each issue that could be edited anonymously by anyone on earth, like Wikipedia entries.
The American people would have direct input to legislation through these "shadow" wikiarguments. A visitor to the site would view two pairs of pro and con wikiarguments per issue (bill), one pair maintained by members of Congress and a corresponding pair maintained by the public at large. If our representatives were in cahoots, and not providing a cogent wikiargument against an unreasonable bill, the corresponding (con) public wikiargument would expose the disingenuous (con) government argument.
Cogent wikiarguments would stand out starkly from specious wikiarguments. Why? Because it's relatively easy to construct clear, cogent arguments when truth is on your side. But when truth isn't on your side, the best you can do is clever specious arguments.
But even clever specious arguments couldn't possibly survive the vast, powerful inquiry an Internet-based Wikiarguments system would subject them to. The whole world would be watching and someone would point out any flaws or deceit. Dishonest politicians would no longer be able to hide from us and shrink from inquiry.
WikiArguments would impose just one simple requirement on our members of Congress: they would be required to justify and defend their collective positions on legislation using clear, rational arguments (posted on the Internet so they can be easily scrutinized). That's it. There would be no other requirement.
Why WikiArguments can't be defeated by clever politicians.
WikiArguments doesn't require the American people to be skilled logicians who can easily recognize deceit in specious arguments. No matter how clever the deceit in a given wikiargument, some member of Congress on the opposing side will see through the deceit and expose it in the corresponding opposing wikiargument.
Even if a clever specious argument fools every member of Congress on the opposing side (a highly unlikely event), somebody in the public (which includes anyone on earth with an Internet connection) is sure to see through the deceit and expose it in the corresponding opposing public wikiargument.
It would only take one member of Congress or one member of the public to expose Congressional deceit. Most Americans can easily see through (even subtle) deceit if it's pointed out to them in clear language.
It would be virtually impossible for a member of Congress to deceive us with a specious wikiargument because the whole world would be watching, ready to expose the deceit.