Imagine a system where our politicians are more responsive, our candidates focus on real issues, the special interest groups have limited influence, and "pork barrel" politics is cut down to size.

Now, imagine that this new system would cost you $6 a year.

Does that sound like a good deal?

Public funding of elections is the solution that could transform our nation's politics, according to a new group called Americans for Campaign Reform, co-chaired by four prominent former senators -- Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson, Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey. They propose that federal money -- taxpayers' dollars -- finance the elections for the U.S. House, Senate and president.

The cost, $1.8 billion a year -- or $6 per U.S. citizen -- would replace the special interest dollars and contributions from lobbyists that currently fund much of our election system. The same type of process could be employed at the state level in Michigan, much like the public financing that's already working in Arizona and Maine.

It's no surprise that Michigan's elections are so non-competitive. Few races for state House and Senate generate a real campaign because the incumbents enjoy a massive advantage in raising dollars from the interest groups, the political action committees.

Sure, gerrymandering of legislative districts and the dynamics of term limits play key roles, but consider the campaign landscape here in Macomb County.

We have 11 House and Senate races on the ballot but only one involves a truly competitive contest. In contrast, we have 26 county board races which drew a crowd of nearly 100 candidates, with about half of the races competitive.

An overwhelming reason for this divergence is that the cost of a House race can reach $100,000, a Senate contest can approach three times that amount. But a county board race can be waged for less than $10,000.

For the Legislature and Congress, the rules of the game are rigged, creating a cozy system for incumbents that fosters good ol' boy politics.

That's where the ripple effects of public financing come into play. Based on early success in Arizona and Maine, it frees officials from kowtowing to big-money interests, it reduces the extraordinary amount of time lawmakers spend rounding up contributions, and it cuts down on the "earmarks" placed in the budget to please lobbyists. In addition, more quality candidates will seek office if they can avoid the unseemly process of securing big bucks from shady characters.

Under a voluntary public financing process, a candidate can forgo the limited public money, preferring to spend many millions of their own cash or funds raised from private sources. But that choice inevitably becomes a campaign issue.

In Maine, 75 percent of the candidates in 2004 chose public dollars over private money. In Arizona, five top state officials were elected two years ago without spending a dime of special interest money that comes with strings attached.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano put it this way: "I could spend my time talking with voters, not big contributors." Once in office, she added, "Lobbyists are not swarming around me."

The cash connection between the lobbyist and the politician is severed. And that makes all the difference. Our politics isn't pilfered by the well-heeled insiders who buy access.

To be fair, the price for this system isn't just $6. It's a willingness to allow your tax dollars to pay for campaign commercials. That may be a key sticking point. Voters who are fed up with mudslinging TV ads may be infuriated with the idea of making them pay for those ads.

Yet, public financing may help cure the situation. I suspect that most candidates will behave -- will get serious -- if they know that the content of their ads is scrutinized as an expenditure of tax dollars.

If anyone doubted that we lack a robust, competitive Democratic system in America, this election season has put that issue to rest. Polls show widespread discontent with the Republican-controlled Congress but the GOP may retain control of the Senate and House, in part because only 35 of the 435 House districts are considered competitive races. By comparison, in 1994, the last time Congress faced a major backlash, the Democratic majority was confronted with 100 competitive races and they lost control to the GOP.

Whether it's 1994 or 2006, our elections should reflect the mood of the country.

If Congress' approval rating is below 30 percent but 99 percent of incumbents win re-election, then the system is rigged. Then our democracy is broken.

Maybe it's worth that $6 to fix it.