7 ms·

> By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent Representatives d

> By co-locating them all in Washington we enable destructive lobbying while keeping them away from the people they are supposed to represent Representatives do spend time in their own states. They also need a central place to meet. No country or system does this differently. > The party system is also destructive - I advocate against any legal recognition of political parties and against campaign ads funded by anyone outside the state a person is running in. I think rolling back Citizens United, which allowed corporations to donate unlimited amounts to candidates' [unaffiliated] campaigns, would be a big practical step in this direction.

alistairSH 9y ago
In addition to rolling back Citizens United would be to re-introduce pork-barrel spending. With changes to the legislative process in the 90s, Congressional leaders lost a strong carrot to keep the rank-and-file members playing along. In the current system, with no carrot, legislators are more inclined to follow the wishes of their constituents. And with extreme gerrymandering, those constituents can be very extreme.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  Pork barrel spending is special interest funding. It's not viewed as a good thing
  - ethbro 9y ago
    There was a pretty strong article a while back (and I assume parent likely also read) that sunshine laws and a decrease in special interest spending ultimately increased partisanship and decreased compromise. Reason being that previous periods of American legislative politics were characterized by back room deals unknown to the public. This afforded politicans an opportunity to strike bargains with the opposition without having a spotlight trained on them (and being crucified in the next primary for "working with the enemy"). The check was that every 2/4 years voters still had an opportunity to toss out the incumbent based on his or her track record of results. (Admittedly without knowing how the sausage was made) While I agree that transparency is a good thing, I'm humble enough to admit that the US legislative / election process is complex and has a lot of feedback. So the article's thesis seems plausible. Which do you want more: non-partisan cooperation or absolute-transparency?
    - naasking 9y ago
      > Which do you want more: non-partisan cooperation or absolute-transparency? Except you can have both as long as you ensure factual standards for news reporting.
      - alistairSH 9y ago
        Can you? With the American primary election system, legislators are driven to cater to their most extreme constituents. With transparency, they can't work across the aisle AND also win a primary. At least with pork barrel, they get a tangible thing to point to while campaigning to attempt to appease constituents.
        naasking 9y ago
        Legislators are driven by extreme positions because of the perception that these positions represent enough voter sentiment to influence elections. In fact most constituents are more centrist, which factual reporting standards would highlight.
        blackbagboys 9y ago
        'Most' constituents may be centrist, but the constituents who vote in primaries generally are not.
        alistairSH 9y ago
        I'm not sure that's correct for primaries. Primary elections are by party, so are by definition more extreme than general elections. A candidate must win over an average Democrat OR and average Republican, not an average across all voters. Further compounding the problem, many states/districts hold closed primaries and/or caucuses, which limits participation to those with a strong interest in elections (either enough interest to join a party and/or enough interest to give up half a day or more of time to join a caucus).
        9y ago
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    That's true, which is why efforts were made to do away with it. However, as noted in the sibling, several political scientists have posited that the result was worse than the previous state of affairs. In the previous system, if a legislator worked across the aisle on some big project, he might get a relatively small kick-back. A new bridge, funding for a pet project, whatever. At election time, he could point to that and say "hey, I worked across the aisle, and got this thing for you!" Now, that pet project doesn't get funded. So, at election time, if the legislator goes across the aisle, he gets crucified by more extreme opponents. There is nothing to point to and say "I got you THIS!" The only incentive is to cater to the most extreme constituents to ensure a primary victory.
naasking 9y ago
> They also need a central place to meet. Not anymore. I'm sure the last 20 years of technological advancement hasn't escaped your notice. I think eliminating colocation is an idea that deserves serious consideration.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  I'm a software engineer, working remotely, and still prefer face-to-face conversation over phone or internet-video chats. I'm glad that our representatives meet to discuss things. If they didn't, I imagine there would be more miscommunication about what's best for America than there already is.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Yeh right no offence but face to face debate does not work very well over teleconferences you need to have everyone in the room. Having a president having to do PMQ's and maintaining the confidence of the house and senate might be a good thing.
  - naasking 9y ago
    I don't know know if you've ever watched C-SPAN, but in person debate already doesn't work. In fact, the wisdom of the crowds effect works best when each actor in the crowd makes up their own mind without the influence of external actors.
    - walshemj 9y ago
      Well the US house and senate are some what unreformed 18th century institutions one senator /congress man commented that the house of lords was more democratic - the is pre removal of most of the hereditary pears.
votepaunchy 9y ago
You can't just "roll back" Citizens United other than amending the Constitution or having a future Supreme Court overturn the ruling.
bitwize 9y ago
Citizens United wasn't about campaign donations. It was about whether a corporation had the right to broadcast its own material endorsing or denouncing one or the other political candidate within a certain time window of an election.

alistairSH 9y ago

In addition to rolling back Citizens United would be to re-introduce pork-barrel spending. With changes to the legislative process in the 90s, Congressional leaders lost a strong carrot to keep the rank-and-file members playing along. In the current system, with no carrot, legislators are more inclined to follow the wishes of their constituents. And with extreme gerrymandering, those constituents can be very extreme.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
Pork barrel spending is special interest funding. It's not viewed as a good thing
- ethbro 9y ago
  There was a pretty strong article a while back (and I assume parent likely also read) that sunshine laws and a decrease in special interest spending ultimately increased partisanship and decreased compromise. Reason being that previous periods of American legislative politics were characterized by back room deals unknown to the public. This afforded politicans an opportunity to strike bargains with the opposition without having a spotlight trained on them (and being crucified in the next primary for "working with the enemy"). The check was that every 2/4 years voters still had an opportunity to toss out the incumbent based on his or her track record of results. (Admittedly without knowing how the sausage was made) While I agree that transparency is a good thing, I'm humble enough to admit that the US legislative / election process is complex and has a lot of feedback. So the article's thesis seems plausible. Which do you want more: non-partisan cooperation or absolute-transparency?
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Which do you want more: non-partisan cooperation or absolute-transparency? Except you can have both as long as you ensure factual standards for news reporting.
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      Can you? With the American primary election system, legislators are driven to cater to their most extreme constituents. With transparency, they can't work across the aisle AND also win a primary. At least with pork barrel, they get a tangible thing to point to while campaigning to attempt to appease constituents.
      - naasking 9y ago
        Legislators are driven by extreme positions because of the perception that these positions represent enough voter sentiment to influence elections. In fact most constituents are more centrist, which factual reporting standards would highlight.
        blackbagboys 9y ago
        'Most' constituents may be centrist, but the constituents who vote in primaries generally are not.
        alistairSH 9y ago
        I'm not sure that's correct for primaries. Primary elections are by party, so are by definition more extreme than general elections. A candidate must win over an average Democrat OR and average Republican, not an average across all voters. Further compounding the problem, many states/districts hold closed primaries and/or caucuses, which limits participation to those with a strong interest in elections (either enough interest to join a party and/or enough interest to give up half a day or more of time to join a caucus).
        9y ago
- alistairSH 9y ago
  That's true, which is why efforts were made to do away with it. However, as noted in the sibling, several political scientists have posited that the result was worse than the previous state of affairs. In the previous system, if a legislator worked across the aisle on some big project, he might get a relatively small kick-back. A new bridge, funding for a pet project, whatever. At election time, he could point to that and say "hey, I worked across the aisle, and got this thing for you!" Now, that pet project doesn't get funded. So, at election time, if the legislator goes across the aisle, he gets crucified by more extreme opponents. There is nothing to point to and say "I got you THIS!" The only incentive is to cater to the most extreme constituents to ensure a primary victory.

naasking 9y ago

> They also need a central place to meet. Not anymore. I'm sure the last 20 years of technological advancement hasn't escaped your notice. I think eliminating colocation is an idea that deserves serious consideration.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
I'm a software engineer, working remotely, and still prefer face-to-face conversation over phone or internet-video chats. I'm glad that our representatives meet to discuss things. If they didn't, I imagine there would be more miscommunication about what's best for America than there already is.
walshemj 9y ago
Yeh right no offence but face to face debate does not work very well over teleconferences you need to have everyone in the room. Having a president having to do PMQ's and maintaining the confidence of the house and senate might be a good thing.
- naasking 9y ago
  I don't know know if you've ever watched C-SPAN, but in person debate already doesn't work. In fact, the wisdom of the crowds effect works best when each actor in the crowd makes up their own mind without the influence of external actors.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Well the US house and senate are some what unreformed 18th century institutions one senator /congress man commented that the house of lords was more democratic - the is pre removal of most of the hereditary pears.

votepaunchy 9y ago

You can't just "roll back" Citizens United other than amending the Constitution or having a future Supreme Court overturn the ruling.

bitwize 9y ago

Citizens United wasn't about campaign donations. It was about whether a corporation had the right to broadcast its own material endorsing or denouncing one or the other political candidate within a certain time window of an election.