3 ms·
That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of el
by cmurf 10y ago
That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of eligible voters who do not care enough to participate in that primary. And then more than half of the eligible voters who don't care enough to participate in the general election. So why disable the ability of those willing to participate to re-elect the person they want?
- general_ai 10y agoIt says that their constituents don't really give a shit about the finer points of things. It also doesn't help that the longer the congress critter stays in congress, the more power they seem to amass, Frank Underwood style. So after 15-20 years they bring in a ton of pork barrel cash to their district, and ensure indefinite reelection until they keel over and die. That's might seem like a good deal for that district, but it's, IMO, not a good deal for the country as a whole. This is similar to how most eligible voters don't give a shit about electing the president. If Obama could run indefinitely, assuming he managed to not screw up really badly, it'd be a piece of cake for him to get re-elected in perpetuity a-la Putin, simply because it's much easier for the incumbent to win (even goddamn Dubya won!), and he'd be able to adjust the laws to his liking with the support of his party in Congress when they have the majority.