Issues with Our Political System

We've all discussed the various problems with our political system here in America. Many have suggested potential solutions such as term limits, lobbying bans, etc to help alleviate some of the corruption and power.

Anyone who is political astute knows that Presidents really aren't all that powerful, but the power lies in Congress and the Senate. While this is part of the genius of our founding fathers in setting up the system, there are some serious issues with the system and voters seem powerless to correct.

The issue is that individual politicians can amass a ton of power, but the wider population of voters have very little power to get rid of that politician. For example, if you were to ask anyone following politics who some of the corrupt and spineless political hacks are you'll get names like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, etc. No one admits to actually liking these people, but yet they somehow get elected every term. How is this possible?

We all know these politicos are hacks. However, only the voters within their states have any power to do anything to get them out of office, yet their policies and political shenanigans affect us all. The issue is that they've entrenched themselves in their local markets with gerrymandering and all kinds of other schemes to protect incumbents, so how do we do anything if the voters in their districts are too stupid or incapable of voting them out? What can I do to as an Illinois resident to get rid of Mitch McConnell? Nancy Pelosi? Paul Ryan? These hacks affect me, but I have no say in their elections.

This is also an issue at the local level which is what prompted me to start thinking about this. For example, here in Illinois, the Democrat Speaker of the House Michael Madigan has essentially run the state into the sewer. He's been in office for 46 years. You'd be hard pressed to find any Illinois resident who actually likes Mike Madigan. Yet, he keeps getting elected year after year. How?

He represents a small ward of only 61,000 people. I can't find the source, but I recall reading somewhere that only like 18,000 people vote in his district, so he is literally clinging to his power over the state by those 18,000 people in a state of 13 million people!

Maybe along with term limits, we should have open elections every so often where you can vote for/against other politicians in other districts. That would be interesting...

a reply to: Edumakated

One problem is the repeal of the 17th amendment. Senators used to be appointed by state governments to represent the state's interest at the federal level. The house of representatives is supposed to be the voice of us, the people. I think we shouldn't have changed that.

Term limits would help but the idiots will not put limits on themselves. It's up to us to not vote in the same people election after election.

I've said it before, if everyone reps and dems stopped voting for incumbents en mass, it would really shake things up.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Edumakated

One problem is the repeal of the 17th amendment. Senators used to be appointed by state governments to represent the state's interest at the federal level. The house of representatives is supposed to be the voice of us, the people. I think we shouldn't have changed that.

Term limits would help but the idiots will not put limits on themselves. It's up to us to not vote in the same people election after election.

I've said it before, if everyone reps and dems stopped voting for incumbents en mass, it would really shake things up.

Thanks. I agree about the 17th.

The issue though is that there is no safety valve for the rest of the country to get rid of an individual politician. I can't vote out a Nancy Pelosi. Only the fruits, nuts, and flakes in San Fran can do that. Yet, Nancy Pelosi affects me and apparently they are unwilling and able to vote her out of office.

a reply to: Edumakated

#1 issue is there are way too many ppl in gov. Too many opinions, fights, party grandstanding, and too many idiots. I thought bruce rauner ran illinois now

Get rid of politicians altogether...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Not a bad idea.

a reply to: Edumakated

Wouldn't your idea erode the concept of states rights though? Why should the much more populous states like California or New York be able to cast votes for who they want to represent me in my state/district?

a reply to: FauxMulder

To understand how 'career politicians' manipulate the system to stay in office one has to understand the process of Gerrymandering.

a reply to: Edumakated

Well unfortunately the people who she represents doesn't think she's a fool. We might but they don't. And I don't want those fools voting for my representatives.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Thanks. I agree about the 17th.

The issue though is that there is no safety valve for the rest of the country to get rid of an individual politician. I can't vote out a Nancy Pelosi. Only the fruits, nuts, and flakes in San Fran can do that. Yet, Nancy Pelosi affects me and apparently they are unwilling and able to vote her out of office.

I also agree on the 17th.

But isn't the fact that Nancy Pelosi is popular with the people she represents proof that she's doing something right? If California likes who governs them, why should Texas, Ohio, or New York be able to take that away?

Each state should have 3 representatives. A billionaire, a middle class person, and a homeless person. No issues will be settled until all 3 agree on an answer for what is best for the people of their state. That way more than one class's opinion is heard and they must find common ground. There, i just outlined the framework for the new gov. So i get a % of $ if it ever happens since i invented it

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: FauxMulder

To understand how 'career politicians' manipulate the system to stay in office one has to understand the process of Gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering subverts general elections which tend to force moderation but they strongly promote primary competition which leads towards more extreme stances. That said, I can't fully argue against the concept. If you have a population of 1 million people divided between two parties is it really a bad thing to divide that population along partisian lines and ensure both get a representative they like? They alternative is to ensure that 50% of the people dislike their member of Congress.

a reply to: Aazadan

Incumbents always get re-elected. People are ignorant and lazy, a lot of them dumb too. Then throw in two party politics machinations and incumbents always get re-elected.

It has nothing to do with them doing things right outside of being parasites who live by, feed off of those social 'laws'.

a reply to: Aazadan

The whole notion of term limits set by the constitution is defeated by redistricting to favor a candidate. In order to prevent people from holding lifetime office like the days of yar in Europe when the Pope and the King ruled for a lifetime.

Talk about embedded corruption.

Here politicians learn to cheat after two to four years, thats why fresh blood renews the political landscape. Instead of entrenched corruption, we get fresh faces, more eager to serve the people.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Edumakated
Thanks. I agree about the 17th.

The issue though is that there is no safety valve for the rest of the country to get rid of an individual politician. I can't vote out a Nancy Pelosi. Only the fruits, nuts, and flakes in San Fran can do that. Yet, Nancy Pelosi affects me and apparently they are unwilling and able to vote her out of office.

I also agree on the 17th.

But isn't the fact that Nancy Pelosi is popular with the people she represents proof that she's doing something right? If California likes who governs them, why should Texas, Ohio, or New York be able to take that away?

The faulty assumption is that she is popular. Often these politicians have gamed the system to ensure their relection even though many despise them in their own districts. What often happens is that the political machine works to ensure relection with fake votes, gerrymandering, keeping out opponents, etc. There is no real representation.

The issue is that she affects more than just her voters. Refer to example I gave regarding Mike Madigan in Illinois. He is the most powerful legislator in Illinois. 13 million people in IL, but he only has to worry about the 20,000 or so people in his district to maintain his power. Of course, he works to ensure that he gets those votes within his district by squashing any challenge.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Incumbents are favored but they don't always get reelected. This comes down to primaries having become the political battleground rather than the general. Winning a primary is pretty easy because few people vote in them. If you can appeal to the fringe, you can win one. At the same time though, this also means that the general population isn't outraged enough to vote anyone out even though it's a very simple thing to do.

Exterminate all career politicians with immediate effect and replace them with three year old children.

Three year old children have no prejudices, no pre-conceived political values, no idea about taxes, no idea how to run a country's government due to the lack of the concept of governance. Oh, hang on.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

They would still do a better job than what we have now

a reply to: Edumakated

So how would you address this? Would you eliminate all federal power so that Illinois has no say in the goings on of any other state? At that point you've dissolved the nation.

This isn't even something that's specific to the federal government. For example, Las Vegas dominates the political landscape of Nevada because they have 85% of the population. They use that population and the position it gives them in the state legislature to dictate how the other towns and cities in the state behave, to Vegas's benefit.

We can go down another level too. Where I live is the county state for my county in Ohio. The representatives of the local government use that position to dictate to the other towns in the area how they're going to conduct business.

I actually do have a solution to this on the federal level. I think we need to make Senators appointed again, and go back to the 1:20,000 ratio for representatives. Then, in order to manage the very large body of Congress that would create, we create a bunch of subcommittee's that administer certain aspects of the country, on a narrow and regional basis (and appoint people from those regions to administer) so that as a body they have immense power, but any individual is much more limited, rather than voting on everything. This would require a pretty substantial constitutional change though, so naturally it would never happen. Chalk it up to another way in which our Constitution is flawed.

a reply to: Aazadan

Problem is the senators and congressmen are out of touch with the common people. You can talk to mayors alot of times and find they still are average people that know whats going on in their cities but you move up to federal level and they are just career out of touch politicans. Theres not a good answer how to fix it besides having alot less of them