6 ms·

The US congress was supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens who part of the time lived at home in their districts. ran their businesses and affairs and occa

by bnolsen 11y ago

The US congress was supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens who part of the time lived at home in their districts. ran their businesses and affairs and occasionally went to vote on federal government issues. What we have is a political class that only does law and politics. Most of them look down on those of us who have to actually work and produce to make a living. Small business individually have almost no revenue or clout compared to these larger entities even though collectively we are the ones who represent most of the economy (or should be representing almost all of the economy if it's healthy).

frozenport 11y ago
>>The US congress was supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens who part of the time lived at home in their districts. Consider the 1790s when it would take a few weeks to travel from DC to the Ohio valley.
bpodgursky 11y ago
There's actually a strong argument that the current congressional gridlock is due to representatives / senators flying into Washington Monday morning and flying back home thursday night, leaving very little time for casual conversations or backroom negotiations (which are vital to actually getting anything passed, as dirty as it sounds) The original pattern setup might have been better, where congressmen moved to Washington for 4-6 months a year along with their families, because there was no other option. But it's harder now to do that with working spouses, and also because they would be eviscerated by challengers locally as being permanent Washington elitists.
- shit_parade2 11y ago
  Every member of congress fund raise every day, sometimes going to multiple fundraising events in a single day. Congress is bought and paid, believing otherwise is to ignore the obvious.
  - bpodgursky 11y ago
    How is this relevant?
    - shit_parade2 11y ago
      Because your explanation is nonsense. Congress has enough time to fundraise, they have plenty of time to legislate and they do legislate extensively and almost exclusively in the interest of those who give them money. It has nothing to do with partisan gridlock, that's a complete sideshow circus, notice how large companies routinely get their special interest laws passed no matter what side of the aisle is in charge.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
zouhair 11y ago
In other time we called that class: Aristocracy.
CWuestefeld 11y ago
The US congress was supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens And indeed they are, and this is the heart of the problem. They're just regular people like us, subject to the same prejudices, temptations, motivations, etc. We shouldn't be surprised when the motivations that are built into the system actually do something. More concretely, we've vested incredible power with our politicians. That makes them huge targets for those with vested interests (whether those be corporation, special interests, foreign governments, what-have-you). The potential reward to them for getting influence is so great that they'll invest tremendously in trying to do so. The idea that "public servants" don't magically become saints, but respond to the same incentives as do the rest of us, is the core of public choice economics [1]. There is, in fact, a fair amount of research and literature on the topic from an academic perspective. From where I sit, if you recognize the problem as one where we're giving the corporations and special interests, etc., a huge potential payoff by finding ways to co-opt governmental power, then increasing that power to try to combat it doesn't make sense: it's just increasing the size of their potential payoff. It sounds like silly pop-Zen, but the way to get such corruption out of government is to limit the power of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice
- raincom 11y ago
  Is there a way to come up with a better system than the exsting one. I am not asking for the ideal system.
  - tech_is_amoral 11y ago
    I read the wiki page on public choice theory and eventually found a wiki page for The Myth of the Rational Voter [1] where they talk about rational irrationality [2]. The idea is that people are more likely to make irrational decisions when the cost of that decision is low, like in voting. An irrational vote only harms you as an individual in a very small way since the cost is distributed across the entire population. So, it seems to me that we should look for ways to increase the cost of irrational decisions. I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this, but one way would be to reduce the power that government has, thereby reducing the impact of irrational decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter#Rational_irrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality
limeyx 11y ago
Then they dare to tell us we are part of the problem, as opposed to them getting their taxpayer-funded salaries, benefits and pensions !
higherpurpose 11y ago
Term limits should be set. I think 12 years in Congress is about the optimum number: not too long to become your life, but also long enough to get "enough experience" and pass it along to the newcomers as they come in. That would be 6 terms for House Representatives and 2 for Senators. Of course it's not a magic bullet. Many other things need to be changed: 1) banning corporations, PACs or any organization from giving money to politicians - only individuals should be able to donate and the sum should be limited to maybe $1,000 (allowing "NGO's" and such to give money is just a loophole looking to be abused) 2) making votes in Congress anonymous [1]. Votes shouldn't have "transparency". There's a reason why anywhere else voting is anonymous: it's much harder to get influenced this way, whether it's by money or peer/leader pressure (see invasion of Iraq, passing the "Patriot" Act, etc). The lobbyists can give you money, and then you can still vote as you wish, which over the long term it will seem like a less and less viable strategy for lobbyists. 3) switching to a much more democratic voting system ("approval voting" [2] would be ideal, but even the 2-voting rounds system that's used in some European countries would be a HUGE improvement, as it would fix the "spoiler effect" somewhat - but still nowhere near enough as approval voting does) 4) proportional party representation in Congress (seems like a no-brainer to me). The idea that 2 parties can dominate Congress/Parliament for a century seems ridiculous to me. Parties should rise and fall every 10 years or so, like it happens in Europe. That would put the focus much more on the issues and much less on "being on the Red or Blue team". 5) abolishing or fixing gerrymandering 6) maybe even regulating the revolving door issue (this one is a bit tricky to do, but I think other countries have some regulation for this) I'm sure there are many other things that can improve how Congress works. The idea is to make them listen much more to the People [3] and much less to single rich individuals and corporations. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY [2] - http://www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 http://www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g
- limeyx 11y ago
  To add a few more things - No more "language was inserted into the bill at the last moment by an anonymous 'staffer' " - All bills have to have an evaluation clause where they describe the criteria for deciding if they are working or not and if they fail them then revoking / fixing - Bills cover a single subject and dont attach a bunch of irrelevant stuff - I would say 6 years max should be plenty then they have to skip at least one cycle - term limits for supreme court Then there's the really radical - All congress people and staffers + Kids go to public school ... if its good enough for my kids, its good enough for yours + use the VA for healthcare ... same reason + Get a nice 401(k) just like we have to live with (the people should get to pick the funds they get to invest in for extra credit) + Get fired if they are late 3 times like a large number of low-wage employees are .... etc. etc. Bring them into the real world instead of living above it
shit_parade2 11y ago
To underline your point people should go look up median wealth by zip code and look at the top ten, they'll see pigs massed around the trough of DC. We've somehow been suckered into supporting a massive class of very expensive bureaucrats whose main interest are themselves, power, and the rich. Who believes laws and regulations create wealth and prosperity, they are burdens and restrictions on the productive.
amelius 11y ago
The problem with members of congress returning to society is that they could make deals with companies while they are in congress, in order to get great benefits at those companies when their term is over. So better keep them from going back into society. Or... forbid them to work (later) for companies that they have dealt with while in congress (but this is difficult to check).
lotsofmangos 11y ago
Reminds me of a line from "Inherent Vice". "People like you lose all claim to respect the first time they pay anybody rent"
rayiner 11y ago
At the state level, legislatures are often part time. But state legislatures are worse and more corrupt.

by bnolsen 11y ago

frozenport 11y ago

>>The US congress was supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens who part of the time lived at home in their districts. Consider the 1790s when it would take a few weeks to travel from DC to the Ohio valley.

bpodgursky 11y ago

There's actually a strong argument that the current congressional gridlock is due to representatives / senators flying into Washington Monday morning and flying back home thursday night, leaving very little time for casual conversations or backroom negotiations (which are vital to actually getting anything passed, as dirty as it sounds) The original pattern setup might have been better, where congressmen moved to Washington for 4-6 months a year along with their families, because there was no other option. But it's harder now to do that with working spouses, and also because they would be eviscerated by challengers locally as being permanent Washington elitists.

shit_parade2 11y ago
Every member of congress fund raise every day, sometimes going to multiple fundraising events in a single day. Congress is bought and paid, believing otherwise is to ignore the obvious.
- bpodgursky 11y ago
  How is this relevant?
  - shit_parade2 11y ago
    Because your explanation is nonsense. Congress has enough time to fundraise, they have plenty of time to legislate and they do legislate extensively and almost exclusively in the interest of those who give them money. It has nothing to do with partisan gridlock, that's a complete sideshow circus, notice how large companies routinely get their special interest laws passed no matter what side of the aisle is in charge.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

zouhair 11y ago

In other time we called that class: Aristocracy.

CWuestefeld 11y ago

The US congress was supposed to be made up of ordinary citizens And indeed they are, and this is the heart of the problem. They're just regular people like us, subject to the same prejudices, temptations, motivations, etc. We shouldn't be surprised when the motivations that are built into the system actually do something. More concretely, we've vested incredible power with our politicians. That makes them huge targets for those with vested interests (whether those be corporation, special interests, foreign governments, what-have-you). The potential reward to them for getting influence is so great that they'll invest tremendously in trying to do so. The idea that "public servants" don't magically become saints, but respond to the same incentives as do the rest of us, is the core of public choice economics [1]. There is, in fact, a fair amount of research and literature on the topic from an academic perspective. From where I sit, if you recognize the problem as one where we're giving the corporations and special interests, etc., a huge potential payoff by finding ways to co-opt governmental power, then increasing that power to try to combat it doesn't make sense: it's just increasing the size of their potential payoff. It sounds like silly pop-Zen, but the way to get such corruption out of government is to limit the power of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

raincom 11y ago
Is there a way to come up with a better system than the exsting one. I am not asking for the ideal system.
- tech_is_amoral 11y ago
  I read the wiki page on public choice theory and eventually found a wiki page for The Myth of the Rational Voter [1] where they talk about rational irrationality [2]. The idea is that people are more likely to make irrational decisions when the cost of that decision is low, like in voting. An irrational vote only harms you as an individual in a very small way since the cost is distributed across the entire population. So, it seems to me that we should look for ways to increase the cost of irrational decisions. I'm not sure the best way to accomplish this, but one way would be to reduce the power that government has, thereby reducing the impact of irrational decisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter#Rational_irrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_irrationality

limeyx 11y ago

Then they dare to tell us we are part of the problem, as opposed to them getting their taxpayer-funded salaries, benefits and pensions !

higherpurpose 11y ago

Term limits should be set. I think 12 years in Congress is about the optimum number: not too long to become your life, but also long enough to get "enough experience" and pass it along to the newcomers as they come in. That would be 6 terms for House Representatives and 2 for Senators. Of course it's not a magic bullet. Many other things need to be changed: 1) banning corporations, PACs or any organization from giving money to politicians - only individuals should be able to donate and the sum should be limited to maybe $1,000 (allowing "NGO's" and such to give money is just a loophole looking to be abused) 2) making votes in Congress anonymous [1]. Votes shouldn't have "transparency". There's a reason why anywhere else voting is anonymous: it's much harder to get influenced this way, whether it's by money or peer/leader pressure (see invasion of Iraq, passing the "Patriot" Act, etc). The lobbyists can give you money, and then you can still vote as you wish, which over the long term it will seem like a less and less viable strategy for lobbyists. 3) switching to a much more democratic voting system ("approval voting" [2] would be ideal, but even the 2-voting rounds system that's used in some European countries would be a HUGE improvement, as it would fix the "spoiler effect" somewhat - but still nowhere near enough as approval voting does) 4) proportional party representation in Congress (seems like a no-brainer to me). The idea that 2 parties can dominate Congress/Parliament for a century seems ridiculous to me. Parties should rise and fall every 10 years or so, like it happens in Europe. That would put the focus much more on the issues and much less on "being on the Red or Blue team". 5) abolishing or fixing gerrymandering 6) maybe even regulating the revolving door issue (this one is a bit tricky to do, but I think other countries have some regulation for this) I'm sure there are many other things that can improve how Congress works. The idea is to make them listen much more to the People [3] and much less to single rich individuals and corporations. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY [2] - http://www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 http://www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04 [3] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mw2z9lV3W1g

limeyx 11y ago
To add a few more things - No more "language was inserted into the bill at the last moment by an anonymous 'staffer' " - All bills have to have an evaluation clause where they describe the criteria for deciding if they are working or not and if they fail them then revoking / fixing - Bills cover a single subject and dont attach a bunch of irrelevant stuff - I would say 6 years max should be plenty then they have to skip at least one cycle - term limits for supreme court Then there's the really radical - All congress people and staffers + Kids go to public school ... if its good enough for my kids, its good enough for yours + use the VA for healthcare ... same reason + Get a nice 401(k) just like we have to live with (the people should get to pick the funds they get to invest in for extra credit) + Get fired if they are late 3 times like a large number of low-wage employees are .... etc. etc. Bring them into the real world instead of living above it

shit_parade2 11y ago

To underline your point people should go look up median wealth by zip code and look at the top ten, they'll see pigs massed around the trough of DC. We've somehow been suckered into supporting a massive class of very expensive bureaucrats whose main interest are themselves, power, and the rich. Who believes laws and regulations create wealth and prosperity, they are burdens and restrictions on the productive.

amelius 11y ago

The problem with members of congress returning to society is that they could make deals with companies while they are in congress, in order to get great benefits at those companies when their term is over. So better keep them from going back into society. Or... forbid them to work (later) for companies that they have dealt with while in congress (but this is difficult to check).

lotsofmangos 11y ago

Reminds me of a line from "Inherent Vice". "People like you lose all claim to respect the first time they pay anybody rent"

rayiner 11y ago

At the state level, legislatures are often part time. But state legislatures are worse and more corrupt.