6 ms·

Congressional job approval rating has been hovering around 10% for quite some time. Worse than Nixon during Watergate. The powerful incumbents responsible for t

by ahi 15y ago

Congressional job approval rating has been hovering around 10% for quite some time. Worse than Nixon during Watergate. The powerful incumbents responsible for the clusterfuck will remain in power. The swing seats will continue to be passed back and forth, perhaps a bit more quickly. That is the nature of our two-party republic.

frankydp 15y ago
We need term limits so badly. Most any business would atrophy with the same leadership for 3 decades.
- bh42222 15y ago
  But how much of a difference would term limits make and how?
- tsantero 15y ago
  I've always felt a little conflicted regarding term limits. While they are one possible solution for cutting dead weight, the problem is you also end up needlessly firing people who do a good job.
  - meow 15y ago
    Not to mention there won't be much of an incentive to work better (at least when they near their end of term).
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      To play devil's advocate: potentially that just means that elected officials would spend more effort running for different positions. House reps. near their term limits would be more likely to run for senate. Senators would run for governor/president. Etc.
  - larrik 15y ago
    The other issue I didn't like was you eventually wind up with someone who knows that even if they do the best job ever, they can't be re-elected. The capitalist in my cringes at the thought.
    - bayleo 15y ago
      While multiple terms definitely incentivize, it also presents the problem of forcing the politicians to begin campaigning for their next term while still in office (quite possibly hindering performance). Maybe the best solution from an economist's prospective would be to leave out the term limits but to somehow boost the popularity of recall elections.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    There are so few cases of people doing a good job over a long period of time, I'm willing to take that trade-off. However, I do think campaign finance reform should come first. Let's see what happens if politicians are really beholden to th people.
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    That's why we vote. If my district wants someone as their representative, who are you to say no? Yes, if you don't like your representative, you can work to change that. It's not the best solution, but it's better then the alternative.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  /s/term limits/meaningful campaign finance regulations/
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    Both of those are just treatments of symptoms. One core problem is that the government has too much power and too many fingers in too many pies. As long as it's possible to spend x dollars to influence congress and receive y>>x dollars in benefit (through budget spending or favorable regulation) then that sort of thing will always happen, regardless of whether those x dollars are funneled through campaign finance or through other sorts of "influence". The other core problem is the electoral climate. The evolution of the news media and its influence on the voting public has left us with a campaign system that filters out a lot of the best candidates and leaves us with the sort of dreck we're used to seeing fill up congress. Running for office is a nightmare these days, so most sane people avoid it. But that leaves only a few of the most dedicated public servants (who are all too rare) and a much greater proportion of folks seeking office for all the wrong reasons (vanity, kickbacks, power, etc.) If we implemented term limits and stringent campaign finance limits tomorrow we'd still be left with the same shitty crop of corrupt and/or glory seeking politicians we have today, it would just be a more frequently turning over crop.
    - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
      The government will always attract people and organizations who want to abuse its power to enrich or otherwise benefit themselves. Other industrialized countries do a better job than the US of keeping those people in check and keeping the government more-or-less on task.
      - InclinedPlane 15y ago
        Care to bolster your claim with evidence? I believe other industrialized nations are at best on par with the US in terms of corruption, if not worse. In the last decade there have been several major corruption scandals in France, the UK, Italy, Canada, and elsewhere. Here's a few examples: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,791113,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,791113,00.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/17/us-italy-corruption-idUSTRE61G3XU20100217 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/17/us-italy-corruptio... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16194089 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16194089 The "corruption perception index" is one measure of corruption, and shows the US as being in the middle of the pack in terms of corruption relative to the G8 overall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Wilduck 15y ago
While the coalition governments that arise in a proportional representation setting have their own sets of problems, a fairly significant number of studies have shown that PR systems increase both voter turnout and voter satisfaction. I often see people deriding the two party system in the US, but rarely any mention of different ways of doing elections. It's certainly not unprecedented for a country to switch from a first past the post system to a PR system. Additionally, the US House of Representatives seems particularly well suited for elections by proportional representation.

by ahi 15y ago

frankydp 15y ago

We need term limits so badly. Most any business would atrophy with the same leadership for 3 decades.

bh42222 15y ago
But how much of a difference would term limits make and how?
tsantero 15y ago
I've always felt a little conflicted regarding term limits. While they are one possible solution for cutting dead weight, the problem is you also end up needlessly firing people who do a good job.
- meow 15y ago
  Not to mention there won't be much of an incentive to work better (at least when they near their end of term).
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    To play devil's advocate: potentially that just means that elected officials would spend more effort running for different positions. House reps. near their term limits would be more likely to run for senate. Senators would run for governor/president. Etc.
- larrik 15y ago
  The other issue I didn't like was you eventually wind up with someone who knows that even if they do the best job ever, they can't be re-elected. The capitalist in my cringes at the thought.
  - bayleo 15y ago
    While multiple terms definitely incentivize, it also presents the problem of forcing the politicians to begin campaigning for their next term while still in office (quite possibly hindering performance). Maybe the best solution from an economist's prospective would be to leave out the term limits but to somehow boost the popularity of recall elections.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  There are so few cases of people doing a good job over a long period of time, I'm willing to take that trade-off. However, I do think campaign finance reform should come first. Let's see what happens if politicians are really beholden to th people.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  That's why we vote. If my district wants someone as their representative, who are you to say no? Yes, if you don't like your representative, you can work to change that. It's not the best solution, but it's better then the alternative.
RyanMcGreal 15y ago
/s/term limits/meaningful campaign finance regulations/
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Both of those are just treatments of symptoms. One core problem is that the government has too much power and too many fingers in too many pies. As long as it's possible to spend x dollars to influence congress and receive y>>x dollars in benefit (through budget spending or favorable regulation) then that sort of thing will always happen, regardless of whether those x dollars are funneled through campaign finance or through other sorts of "influence". The other core problem is the electoral climate. The evolution of the news media and its influence on the voting public has left us with a campaign system that filters out a lot of the best candidates and leaves us with the sort of dreck we're used to seeing fill up congress. Running for office is a nightmare these days, so most sane people avoid it. But that leaves only a few of the most dedicated public servants (who are all too rare) and a much greater proportion of folks seeking office for all the wrong reasons (vanity, kickbacks, power, etc.) If we implemented term limits and stringent campaign finance limits tomorrow we'd still be left with the same shitty crop of corrupt and/or glory seeking politicians we have today, it would just be a more frequently turning over crop.
  - RyanMcGreal 15y ago
    The government will always attract people and organizations who want to abuse its power to enrich or otherwise benefit themselves. Other industrialized countries do a better job than the US of keeping those people in check and keeping the government more-or-less on task.
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      Care to bolster your claim with evidence? I believe other industrialized nations are at best on par with the US in terms of corruption, if not worse. In the last decade there have been several major corruption scandals in France, the UK, Italy, Canada, and elsewhere. Here's a few examples: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,791113,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,791113,00.... http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/17/us-italy-corruption-idUSTRE61G3XU20100217 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/17/us-italy-corruptio... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16194089 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16194089 The "corruption perception index" is one measure of corruption, and shows the US as being in the middle of the pack in terms of corruption relative to the G8 overall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Wilduck 15y ago

While the coalition governments that arise in a proportional representation setting have their own sets of problems, a fairly significant number of studies have shown that PR systems increase both voter turnout and voter satisfaction. I often see people deriding the two party system in the US, but rarely any mention of different ways of doing elections. It's certainly not unprecedented for a country to switch from a first past the post system to a PR system. Additionally, the US House of Representatives seems particularly well suited for elections by proportional representation.