I mean, holy fuck…You hear all this hooplah about the government doing this and that and how no one likes them on the whole (somehow they have climbed back to a 16% approval rate). Yet, you rarely see an huge shifts in Congress and they always have a low turnout rate in elections compared to the Presidential elections. What gives?
Most people are thoroughly disgusted with Congress and want to kick them all out – except their representative, he’s a nice guy who fights for me. So that’s why there is so little turnover.
It’s because while everyone hates your congressman they’re pretty happy about theirs.
Is it a lack of specific accountablility on the part of the media? Would we be more apt to vote out people if the media showed how big of douchebags each of them are?
The devil you know…
To nitpick, you reelect the House of Representative every two years. The Senate is on a staggered 6 year cycle.
How so? That’s just the biased media picking on them.
Again, your Representative is a corrupt scumbag. My representative is a paragon of virtue who fights for his/her constituents.
For the House, it’s all about the gerrymandering. So many districts are constructed to be safe for one party or the other that barring a completely unacceptable candidate, the favored party is going to win. Most incumbents who get nominated have very easy election victories.
Except for three out of the last four election cycles…
Yes. Most Congressional Districts are certainties for one party; it’s gotten worse after the latest redistricting. In a fair portion of the districts, the incumbent runs unopposed, without even a token opponent.
Worse, since the Republican candidates’ only worry is the primary where extremists are over-represented, the electoral process favors fringe candidates, e.g. Tea Partyists.
In an earlier thread I introduced a simple fix that would counter this at least somewhat-- base Congressional seniority not on longevity but on votes received in the most recent general election.
Oh, God, that sounds even worse. So the Senators from moderate states get no seniority, and the Senators from extreme states on both sides automatically get lots of it? That’s even worse than what we have now. At least now you can lose a primary and a state will lose its seniority for a decade. With that system, moderate states get permanently screwed.
I’m assuming you meant proportion of votes received, because in terms of actual votes received, that just makes small states weaker.
Have you concluded that each member of Congress is a douchebag because you dislike the whole institution and its constituent parts, or do you actually have information on the doucheness of each of the 535 members?
Exactly. Take the case of Nancy Pelosi, a very polarizing figure. She’s highly disliked by many people all over the country, everywhere except by people in her district. There she won 85% of the vote.
As an example, the Republicans redrew the Congressional districts in Pennsylvania, and this year Republicans captured 13 of the 18 seats even though if you add up the votes for the Congressional Democratics candidates and the votes for the Congressional Republican candidates across the state, you find that more voters actually voted for a Democrat than a Republican.
True but the people of San Francisco would vote for a pile of rocks versus any Republican. They may not like her at all although those who think about it probably like such a powerful Congressperson representing them.
I’ll put down my rabidly partisan congressman when you put down yours.
If she’s got that safe a seat, and if they didn’t like her at all, she’d be easy to primary, you’d think.
She may be a polarizing figure, but that also may mean that a lot of people really, really like her. I certainly do.
Also, it’s seemingly possible for certain media and media figures (Fox, Rush) to turn anyone into a polarizing figure. Everybody seems to agree now that Bill Clinton is great, but that’s not how they played it 15 years ago. And hating on Hillary was a staple with them.
And it was hardly the only state in that situation. Ohio was very similar.
Nationally, Dem House candidates got more votes than GOP House candidates, and yet the GOP will outnumber the Dems by >30 in the new House in January. So it wasn’t one of these ‘both sides do it’ things.
Pelosi? Any Democrat who tried to primary her would have a very short career in politics. She is way too powerful.
But a lot of people do like her there. I do think that she’d win regardless.
Exactly my point. It’s not just that she’s a Democrat. She’s really well liked in her district.