Refman,. Unions and trial lawyers are small potatoes compared to corporations and the corporate elite. You've fallen for the false equivalency tactic pushed by the corporate elite. BTW a union with several hundred thousand members is not a "special interest" in the way the two or three Koch borthers or the handful of Walton heirs are. Apples and oranges. Hopefully you are not into another common example pushed by a lot of conservatives: "some scientists think humans have contributed to global warming; some don't think so." If you still see the equivalency, will you join me in agreeing that we should have public funding of elections with no money from any group or individuals polluting the process?
I think the OP's idea of representation is a bit flawed. I agree that Congress doesn't properly represent us. However, just putting a proportional amount of persons from certain groups doesn't equate to representation either. All athiests don't think alike, and the same goes for Jews, Christians, Muslims, and so on. I think the best way to have real representation would be for representatives to be chosen at random from the population they serve. The law of statistical averages would basically mean that each district would be approximately represented by the average person from their district.
I think this is something we can all agree on -- Congress is in no way a good representation of the US population.
Demarchy. That's a position I've advocated for a very long time. It would reduce the power of "special interests" (code word for people paying bribes) drastically, and would give us an added incentive to educate people.
Congress is full of money and people go to Congress to make more money. To become a congressman, you need money to market and advertise. Not talent, not strength of character, not anything but deep pockets or strong connections. Congress has become the domain of nobility. And we're seeing our gov't to be not much different from a feudal system. We should find a way to get people with knowledge into congress - economists, scientists, generals, and maybe just a few executives. It should be balanced slice of disciplines. Not former actors, sports stars, and children of the wealthy. You do this by taking the money out of congress. Sadly, that will probably never happen.
I haven't said anything about 'average' one way or the other. Seriously ... how can you tell if someone is above average? We really need a draft for congress. Random selection from particular districts.
Thread title to Poll Question and Answers fail. The Switcheroo. Or is this what's good for the goose is good for the gander? difficulty: easy.
Congress has been utter and complete crap for decades. And I expect that to continue for many more years.
There is not some legally enforced rule that there can only be two parties. People from other parties or with no party affiliation run all the time. The thing is, not as many people vote for those candidates, so they tend not to win. To spin your analogy, if you have a family of seven and 3 want tomatoes and 3 want potatoes, you can swing the vote one way or the other, but if you vote for pumpkin it is not lack of a choice causing you to end up with tomatoes or potatoes, it is that you are getting out-voted. That is not an indictment of the two party system, it is an indictment of winner take all elections. As to the poll, I don't agree with either option. Congress is not fine the way it is, but making it more directly mirror the demographics of the US is not a fix. For what ails it. We should elect congresspeople who have a deep understanding of the constitution and their role under it and who are willing to do the right thing regardless of polling data. Having more (women, Muslims, atheists, native Americans, whatever) is no guarantee of that. Unfortunately, we elect representatives for any reason we want, or even for no articulable reason, so this is what we get.
How will this affect how you vote in the elections? I ask because the Republicans through their obstructionism to Obama have indirectly promised a relatively well-functioning Congress if Mitt Romney is elected, and the GOP control over both Houses (filibuster renders Senate advantage for Dems irrelevant). A number of people I've talked to this on this matter have admitted that they'll vote for Romney and the GOP if only to make Congress functional again. They (hope) think the Republicans will come to their senses and pass legislation to strengthen our middle class and economy.
My apologies. It was a manipulative tactic to ask two different questions, but that wasn't my intent, and I should've clarified. I thought asking a question in the thread title and asking for the same question in the pole was redundant. Instead, I wanted the thread title to ask posters if the status quo was X, and for the poll question to be, "if status quo was not X, should there be policy implementing for X to happen?"
My issues with Congress don't revolve around the individual members' gender/income/net worth/religion/ethnicity. What bothers me is the sway that lobbyist and campaign contributions have on the decision making when the focus should be on what's best for America. In the same respect the political parties need to get over themselves. Instead of working together, both sides are too afraid to be seen as the "loser". The actors have become too big for the stage.
I assume you're an adult with an adequate civic education. Whether you like it or not, the qualities above determine how a person thinks. Human beings always evaluate backgrounds when judging each other. It's an idealistic belief that a voter should only consider what a politician promises they'll do (what I also assume you consider when you vote) rather than a history of where they come from. To use a simplistic business analogy, when interviewing a person for a position, you don't only hire them based on what they say. You consider their resume as well, which combined with some other details gives you a holistic overview of that candidate for that job. Unless you are ignorant of this human tendency and/or part of the skewed demographic in our Congress (male, white, wealthy, educated but not in science) who benefits from the status quo, then I can't see how Congress's profile doesn't bother an ordinary American like you. That's a fair statement. Putting any random Muslim in Congress doesn't necessarily mean he'll be a better representative for me or a better legislator in regards to policy-making concerning my faith. However, there is nothing like a person in government who truly understands the concerns and life of the people below him. I got to meet an individual from a working class background who now has a very powerful position in a Latin American country. When I first met him, talking to him about his ideas and plans, I could tell he was sincere versus the member of the corrupt and detached elite which he replaced in office. There is a sense of urgency and knowing what's at stake when you personally connect with your constituents. I only hope we can have more people in Congress, the White House, and the SCOTUS like that. I disagree. "gender/income/net worth/religion/ethnicity" and other factors invariably affect the worldview of a human being, and thus these factors affect policy-making. Our many problems like rising income equality, immigration issues, healthcare crisis, War on Drugs, and more are all consequences of having people in office that can't or choose not to relate to the people affected by these problems. It's been decades and little has been done partly because of a skewed Congress. Lobbying and campaign contributions are no doubt another huge factor in the status quo, but my gut tells me it's easier refusing corrupting influence and money when you have a personal connection to your constituents. I would like to tackle both the 'money in politics' issue as well as the representation issue.
Is it really shocking though? Most American voters seem to have a fetish for people who have been the very best slaves to corporate interests, and the economy is built such that those people have a distinct advantage in upward social mobility. I think it would be far more relevant to be able to see the split between inherited wealth and 'earned' wealth. Most people who have inherited lots of wealth have historically been disconnected from those who had to work their way up. I don't understand the argument for why gender/religion/ethnicity would matter at all. IMO the real idealistic view is that these factors will be the difference maker, rather than a change in the rules which put/keep them in congress.
Ya I'm not quite sure why people switch the poll question to ask the opposite from what they put as the thread title.
