Americans Agree: Throw the Bums Out!
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again.
Still, assuming it could actually be done, would replacing the current crop of legislators satisfy the public? Somehow I doubt it. Politics is an unsavory business no matter who's involved. In general, I don't have much love for politicians, but I think this might be one of those times where we can learn a thing or two from Ice-T's dictum, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
all that power for so few assholes. it doesn't matter who is in office. I think if they focused more on repealing old shitty laws instead of making new ones to fuck things up further, Congress would actually serve a purpose. Till then, we're screwed.
I wish the survey also asked if they should be deprived of Habeas Corpus, Due Process, and imprisoned/water boarded indefinitely.
people tend to prefer their representative even while disliking Congress as a whole
I have a representative? Could you let me know who it might be?
As for the member of Congress who lives in the same district as I do, I dislike her as much as I dislike Congress as a whole.
A couple ideas:
1) For every new law that is created, an old one has to be removed.
2) Create a legislative cap and trade, restricting "spending" instead of "carbon"
3) Populate congress in the same manner as jury duty: mandatory (with exceptions), random selection, one term only (but repeatable if randomly reselected).
4) Require all members of congress to be subject to every mandate, program, or coverage that they create.
5) Require Legislators to be personally responsible for paying for their programs/law/etc.
Any others?
I think if they focused more on repealing old shitty laws instead of making new ones to fuck things up further,
The problem is no one can agree on what the old shitty laws are.
Sadly, it seems that most people like many of the old shitty laws -- despite the old canard about living in a "free country" people tend to love laws that restrict the rights of others to do things that said people don't agree with.
3) Populate congress in the same manner as jury duty: mandatory (with exceptions), random selection, one term only (but repeatable if randomly reselected).
Personally, I would just like to see terms limits put in place. I don't mind elections and campaigning, but I think there should be strict and short term limits -- that way you minimize the amount of damage a piss poor pol can do, and also make it harder to corrupt a pol when they know they don't have to worry about re-election.
It seems to me that the longer the tenure as an elected official, the more corrupt you become (see Murtha, John and Stevens, Ted for examples)
Any others?
I also would forbid kin -- even distant kin from being able to hold the same elected office for say 10 years or so.
How about this? Multiply the number of congresspeople by a factor of one hundred, and divide the salaries by the same factor.
10,000 senators and 435,000 representatives making $1740 each? I like it. And also no raises.
God Damn missing closing Italics tag...
lets try it again
------
3) Populate congress in the same manner as jury duty: mandatory (with exceptions), random selection, one term only (but repeatable if randomly reselected).
Personally, I would just like to see terms limits put in place. I don't mind elections and campaigning, but I think there should be strict and short term limits -- that way you minimize the amount of damage a piss poor pol can do, and also make it harder to corrupt a pol when they know they don't have to worry about re-election.
It seems to me that the longer the tenure as an elected official, the more corrupt you become (see Murtha, John and Stevens, Ted for examples)
Any others?
I also would forbid kin -- even distant kin from being able to hold the same elected office for say 10 years or so.
The point being, of course, that getting a consensus on any bill, or perhaps even a quorum, would be difficult to impossible.
Folks say these things to the pollsters. They yammer on about how screwed up the country is because of congress. Then the elections come around and if you can get them to drag their fat asses off the couch long enough to vote, all they know is what the soundbites and the radio enemaniacs have told them and so they vote for the same ole half-wit shitbag assholes to run the country. That way they don't have to do anything to run it themselves.
Joe M
cripes. not saying it's a bad idea, but most people can't be bothered to keep up w/ their 3 congresscritters as it is, might this lead to even more ticket voting?
A major oversight of the Constitution is that it didn't include a mandatory sunset clause for all legislation.
*43,500
And yes, it would, but I would imagine that few people would be interested in participating for such a small salary. Also, if each district had one hundred seats, the top one hundred could get in, and thus, much better proportional representation of the population. In fact, I bet even the LP could get a few hundred people into congress in those circumstances.
Whoa. To be semi-serious, changing this into, say a factor of maybe five instead of a hundred, and having the top five vote-receivers in each district get seats, might actually work. You'd probably end up with 2-3 Dems and/or Republicans per district, but the occasional third party member would get in as well. Things would be a lot more interesting.
I can recall a big hub-bub around 1990 about "throwing the bums out." Much ink was spilled prior to the election about how a new day was about to dawn upon us with freshly scrubbed electorate.
The 98% incumbancy rate fell to 92%. For one election.
woo-hoo....
No national poll can factor in gerrymandering - the electoral scourage of the USA.
Of 435 House seats - 380 are safe via cutouts.
The "bums" account for approximately 55 seats.
And the US Senate has 7 of 40 GOPers leaving already.
3) Populate congress in the same manner as jury duty: mandatory (with exceptions), random selection, one term only (but repeatable if randomly reselected).
Agreed. Maybe add a reading comprehension test.
But think of all the problems random selection would resolve:
1. No campaigns, hence no campaign contributions.
2. Representative sample of the population - automatically proportional by sex, age, ethnic group, etc.
3. No need to get reelected, so no need to pander
My idea: continue to elect by district, but which district you vote for changes randomly each 2 years.
So, instead of voting for KY-3 yet again next year, I might vote for IL-6 or CA-12 or WY-only or whatever. The winner would continue to represent his district, even though they didnt actually vote on him.
Everyone wants to throw the bums out, except their own bum. In this case, everyone's bum will get thrown out.
robc - hell, we'd probably have better luck with a congress chosen by lottery than by voting.
Nipplemancer,
I dont disagree. But I had to suggest something different. 🙂
Bruce Bartlett wrote a great article on how the GOP needs to purge themselves of the Wahhabi Christians in 2010-12 and lose resoundingly.
Nominate the airhead fundie Sarah Palin - lose by 25 points and let a Libertarian Party emerge later....
Our only hope!
There is a much simpler fix. Once a year, an official poll is taken. If support for congress falls below 33 1/3%, then a lottery is held, and one member of the House (odd years) or Senate (even years) is executed on pay-per-view.
Doesn't that rather depend on whether or not it's For The Children?
I would go for a no-confidence vote. If the approval rate for Congress as a whole fell below, say, 40%, then the entire lot would be tossed out and be ineligible to run again.
How about not changing election laws just to keep a Senate seat in a certain set of replacement hands?
*cough* Ted wanted a law changed four years after he had it changed *cough*
TLG:
it's ok cause he's dead see?
I take these congressional poll numbers with a huge tub of salt. It doesn't matter what people think of Congress as a whole, but only what they think about their particular representative.
That's why the same bums get in time after time.
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Thanks, ransom.
I should probably report myself to ObamaCentral for daring to question His Word.
I wonder if Obamacare will cover lobotomies...
I wonder if Obamacare will cover lobotomies...
i'm sure this will be handled by the dept of educashun...
Could just ask our resident Trotsky-slobberers where they got THEIR lobotomies...
If only there was a way we could outsource the 'getting rid of' part.
The House should be determined by lottery every 5 years with a $400,000 salary adjusted 2% each year.
It's a $2 million investment in people that can't be as bad as the group of power-mad lawyers we currently have in there.
Are people in America really intolerant of fundies?
Just let anyone into the house who can get a number of signatures on a petition equal to the average number of voters for a given district (set the number off the avg of the past few elections and just keep it in the future). Why should representation be limited by geography?
Bingo.
As in, Johnny Longtorso got it right.
...not that House members should be chosen in a Bingo game.
Could just ask our resident Trotsky-slobberers [Shrike] where they got THEIR lobotomies...
I think I would be fine with a "no consecutive terms" rule.
1) If experience matters to you, or you just worry that you'll actually find a politician you like, you get to elect them as much as you want, but only half the time.
2) No incumbent, so no incumbent advantage
3) Politicians spend so much time campaigning. At least now it's their own time (granted, if you prefer that they campaign rather than pass crappy laws, this could be considered a drawback).
4) Politicians might stay more in touch with the world outside of Washington. Sure, they could stay there and lobby or hobnob, but states could revise residency restrictions to eliminate them from running if they don't live in-state enough when not in office.
535 random names from the phone book, problem solved.
More realistically:
- Zero tolerance policy, drugs and alcohol
- Pay equal to U.S. median income
- Every meeting with lobbyists videotaped
- I've said this before, no legislation longer than both sides of an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, twelve point double-spaced, one side of the page if it's a veto override.
I propose a lottery with a re-election by 60% or greater vote of confidence by the district with a re-election limit of three terms. If a candidate does not recieve the 60% vote, a new lottery takes place a week later.
the lottery in my head is a complete rip-off of the Megamillions - you have to get all 5 balls & the mega ball to get a seat in the house of representitives.
I betcha Thomas Jefferson would get a kick out of that.
What's wrong with Fundies?
If you asked Americans if they think elections should be decided by an eating contest, 43% would say yes. So, polls like this are just a curiosity.
Say, if anyone would like to darn Reason and encourage real debate in the U.S., see the link and follow through by helping form a local group.
I'd like to meet one of those 25% and find out what the hell is wrong with them. I'm hoping they're just people who are completely ignorant of politics, and couldn't name a single member of Congress or tell you a single issue that's up for debate other than a generic "health care" -if that.
Of course, the problem is that no matter what the poll says, over 90% of Congress will be re-elected again, and again in 2012, 2014...
535 random names from the phone book, problem solved.
I don't want Congress to be made up entirely of people with landlines.
"For every new law that is created, an old one has to be removed."
More like a ten-to-one ratio, but you're on the right track.
Suggestion: Make the phrase "there oughta be a law" illegal. Dig the irony.
shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
3) Populate congress in the same manner as jury duty: mandatory (with exceptions), random selection, one term only (but repeatable if randomly reselected).
I've said this for years. Get rid of the damned elections and the option to get re-elected. Though I would add a couple of caveats.
1) There should be at least some minimum educational limit for eligibility to the House. I'm not interested in Joe the 6th Grade Drop Out Janitor sitting in the legislature.
Also much wisdom in making sure the House is just big enough that nobody can afford to bribe a majority. Just big enough for that, and no bigger. However big that is (TBD).
2) The basic idea behind the House and Senate should be preserved somehow. The House is intended to represent the common people, while the Senate represents the aristocracy. You know like the House of Lords and House of Commons. There are different interests going here and they do both need representation (remember who stopped the carbon tax more than once -- the senate, which is where the money is).
There's actually some very good logic behind doing things this way. At least occasionally killing pure populism comes to mind as a start. Also consider the fact that "capitalists" have no voice, indeed no justification for existing, under socialism. We're after capitalism here.
If you randomly select the House and Senate without this distinction, then the House and Senate become redundant copies of one and other. I don't think reducing the legislature to a single house is a good idea. Monied interests need to have their voice -- and they shall find a (probably perverted) way to have it anyway, if you don't give them a legit avenue.
Exactly how you'd set up a lottery to maintained the House and Senate I don't know. Just saying, a means of doing so should be maintained.
There is a much simpler fix. Once a year, an official poll is taken. If support for congress falls below 33 1/3%, then a lottery is held, and one member of the House (odd years) or Senate (even years) is executed on pay-per-view.
Now you're getting somewhere. This is also along the lines of what I've advocated for years. Because you see, it's got an element of Roman pragmatism running through it.
But I suggest this: each year that the congress looses public confidence, a member of both the Senate and House are selected (draw straws?). We then build the American Arena, where these two publicly fight to the death.
The winner immediately faces a well-starved lion.
Three months later another public vote of confidence in congress is taken. If support falls below 1/3 then the process is repeated, only this time they randomly select 10 members each from House and Senate to go to the Arena. The winners face 10 well-starved lions.
Repeat in three more months, where another failure results in randomly selecting 100 members each of House and Senate.
Hmm. Problem is, this subjects both houses of congress to pure populism.
I have no beef with public executions (though they should be made as entertaining as possible). I just don't want congress to be afraid to do what should be done (like killing medicare) because they fear the Arena.
We really need to come up with a good policy on how the America Arena is to be used. I suggest an entire thread be dedicated to seeking answers and taking public inputs.
1) There should be at least some minimum educational limit for eligibility to the House. I'm not interested in Joe the 6th Grade Drop Out Janitor sitting in the legislature.
yeah. what an amazing public education system we have, we should base all things off of it...
But I suggest this: each year that the congress looses public confidence, a member of both the Senate and House are selected (draw straws?).
but once public confidence is loose, who is to catch it?
My representative is Ron Paul. My local parasite from San Jose is Mike Honda.
-jcr
If you asked Americans if they think elections should be decided by an eating contest, 43% would say yes.
Seems to me that we could do worse than have a do-nothing congress full of lethargic, overweight dullards. It's those fuckers who want to "get something done" who are constantly seeking to increase their power.
-jcr
If support for congress falls below 33 1/3%, then a lottery is held, and one member of the House (odd years) or Senate (even years) is executed on pay-per-view.
Not a lottery, please. I want the opportunity to vote on which of the parasites gets the axe. Kennedy would have been my first choice.
-jcr
Isn't that the current system?
but once public confidence is loose, who is to catch it?
The lion.
I want the opportunity to vote on which of the parasites gets the axe.
I'm fine with voting on who, but I'd still rather feed 'em to the lion.
If you asked Americans if they think elections should be decided by an eating contest
What do you think this lion idea is all about, anyway?
It's too bad we don't have a way to have a national vote of "no confidence" the passage of which requires the removal of the entire legislative body.
"but I think this might be one of those times where we can learn a thing or two from Ice-T's dictum, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."
The game sucks because the people who play it are depraved. It sucks especially bad for Suderman these days because his beloved Democrats are on the recieving end of it. But cheer up, two years ago the Republicans were on the end of it.
I really don't understand Suderman. We have the worst political class in American history right now. Finally people are waking up and are about to clean house. And instead of viewing that as a good thing, Suderman cries that people don't like our poor politicians. WTF? No Peter, hate the playa.
ktc2,
That's actually a pretty intriguing idea.
John,
I interpreted Suderman's article to express pretty much what you just said, not pity for the Dems in particular. Just sayin'.
Art,
He says
"Politics is an unsavory business no matter who's involved. In general, I don't have much love for politicians, but I think this might be one of those times where we can learn a thing or two from Ice-T's dictum, "don't hate the playa, hate the game."
He seems to be saying that we shouldn't hate politicians individually we should hate politics. I disagree. Politics is only as bad as those who practice it. If our politics suck, it is because our politicians suck. To put it in Suderman's words, we should absolutely hate the playa.
John, you're falling into the classic mistake, namely: "If only we had the right people in office."
"John, you're falling into the classic mistake, namely: "If only we had the right people in office."
We have to have a government. There was a time in this country where we had a reasonably functioning government. You can say that well we need to limit the power of government and therefore limit the damage done. But, how do you plan to do that with a completely depraved political class? Eventually, you have to have an improved political class or you will never reverse the damage done. Sitting around claiming that all politics is evil and it is not the fault of those in power things are bad. No, it is completely the fault of those in power.
Moreover, who is Suderman kidding? He would never have written something like this if the Dems were not in power. He is just angry that people are pissed at his side.
To hammerHead - Absolutely.
We had a "reasonably functioning government," if ever, only when it was limited to reasonable functions. As the government unreasonably assumed more and more functions throughout the 20th century, it functioned more and more unreasonably: the inherent dysfunctional tendencies of government were amplified to the point where they not only could not be ignored, but began to impair any parts of government that, before, had seemed to be performing reasonable functions reasonably.
As far as the nominal subject of this thread, I am amazed and gratified that a solid majority of Americans (as polled, anyway) now hold the position that I have been advocating for some time: Fire 'em all and reboot. How long will it take them to adopt the 2nd part of my prescription? Don't elect any more Demos or GOP until the Congress is fully sanitized. Pick the successors to our cashiered officials from the ranks of independent and third-party candidates! At worst, you'll get a Congress that behaves much like the one we have now, but it will have a fear of the electorate, as every member will have received the "we, the people are the bosses and you can be replaced" message loud and clear. At best, whatever principles and salutary ideologies the new guys bring to DC might actually help to improve our collective situation.
"""A new Rasmussen poll confirms it: A majority of Americans are tired of Congress."""
Yeah? and how many of Americans voted for a Senator in the presidental primaries?
We hate them so much we promoted one of them to President.
The game sucks because the people who play it are depraved.
The people who play it are depraved, because those are the kinds of people the system rewards. It's the game, not the players.
Central axiom of economic theory: people respond to incentives.
If we elected responsible officals they would tax the crap out of us to pay the debt quicker, saving us the interest long term. That would be the fiscally responsable thing to do. Who the hell would vote for that guy? We prefer the people that will push it on to future generations.
The bums are a symtom of the greater problem, the citizenry.
America elected Bush jr a second time, then elected Obama. That says more about us than the players themselves.
The time to replace them, if there ever was one, was after the $700 billion theft/TARP program prior to the 2008 election. American voters showed how serious they are about wanting to throw the bums out, returning almost everyone to Congress, as usual.
I like the idea of throwing the bums out, but why replace them at all? Wouldn't we be much freer if Congress never convened again? Don't we have enough laws already? Couldn't any truly necessary government functions (if any) be performed at the state or local level?
One specific law I would get a lot of laughs out of would be the following:
Require every member of the congress to file their income tax returns by hand. No calculator, no accountants, no help other than the IRS toll free number. Just a pen & a shitload of paper. They wrote it, they follow it!
Another fun thing to try would be state-wide elections for representatives. For example, Indiana has 9 seats in the house. State wide elections with the top 9 vote getters getting the seats... Kinda like the AP poll in college football. Therefore, you wouldn't have people running against another person, but against every other person. It would lead to some very cool inter-party fighting, as well as some third party people actually getting seats. It would also make a protected seat a very difficult proposition. Mickey Mouse would probably be very busy representing multiple states though...
Barring this, we could always go for the Guns & Dope Party's ostrich idea.
Interesting Kyle.
But I think I'm also going to write a book entitled _The Proper Use of Lions in Government_.
The oly way American's can get their country back from the special interested is to get term limits on all congressmen and senators. Until that happens, no one in Washington will represent the people. The only way to get term limits it to vote out of office all incumbents regardless of party until they get the message they are there to represent the best interest of the people.
regardless of what you think, the American people elected these idiots to "lead" us. If we don't like them, let's vote them out. Start by not voting for any incumbent for the next five years. Then we will have a completely new elected government. If that doesn't do anything but stur up the pot a little. What could go wrong? What would be worse than what we have now?
We need more political parties. Since neither party represents the majority. More parties would create more diversity and give the voter more choice. As the system is now you get to vote for Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. Both owned by the same corporate sponsors.They basically have the same corrupt agenda. To enrich themselves, do the bidding of their major contributors and get reelected for life. Do you really think that more than 15% of the 535 people in Congress care about you?
If Dems are voted out in Nov, 2010, it will be because of the incessant agenda of Washington to impair the Constitution and all it stands for by ending the separation of powers that was intended to provide the means of democracy, and the means of change, whether or not there are term limits. Many won't vote because changing Congress doesn't alter the attitudes of origin that both parties now participate in. Term limits appears to be the only possible partial solution but won't solve the original problem of the inability to live by the original Constitution as the source of the problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2suBL4cDHY
Check out my New Song and Video called "LET'S TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY". This song Bashes Both Parties and the Corporate slobs and their Pol Lackies.
Thanks...Barry...863-385-5690