If less than 10% of your employers thought you were doing your job, would you still have one?
Asked by
rojo (
24179
)
November 9th, 2011
Congressional approval ratings are at an all time low. Rassmussen indicates a 9% rating, as does the CBS/NYT poll. Fox polls rate them higher at 10%. Would we be better off as a country if we could do what they seem to do in Europe and declare “No Confidence” in our Congress and then have a special election to replace them?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
50 Answers
Replace who? And with whom?
I can’t stand it when people talk about Congress as if it were a monolithic entity.
@Qingu I know,
I am not picking on any one particular member of Congress but it seems to me that, based on the polls, the majority of the American people see the entire institution as a monolithic block that is either doing a poor/fair job or at a complete impasse. I am asking if it would or would not be better for the country to have a blanket recall election on all members. Personally, I do not think it would do any good but that is just my take on it.
Replace one party (Dems) with the other party (Rep). Dems have had a five year shot at it. Turn it over to the other party.
It’s not like members of Congress held guns to people’s heads, forced their way in and refuse to leave. They were elected to office. Americans have the opportunity to “fire” their Representatives and “hire” new ones every two years. And they have the opportunity to do the same with their Senators every six years.
@plethora, Repubs control the House. Repubs are responsible for the gridlock that the original poster is complaining about. Your statement is unbelievable.
@rojo, then the majority of Americans are ignorant morons. This attitude rewards the party that is responsible for intransigence and inaction, and punishes the party that is actually trying to get legislation accomplished.
Why don’t we determine which members of Congress are responsible for Congressional inaction and intransigence and then just fire them?
Congress as a whole is incredibly unpopular. But in their specific districts/states, congressional members are popular.
I think people are just sick of them not working together on anything. IMO the far right has really muddled it up with their “our way or the highway” standpoint on everything.
@Qingu I am not sure I follow you. Over 90% see intransigence in Congress as problematic, why would this make them morons? Or are you referring to my take on it that the polls indicate that Congress is viewed as a monolith? Are you saying that we would or would not be better off?
@tedd This is why I do not think that it would do any good, everyone would just reelect their guy while hoping everyone else would elect some less obnoxious.
People are morons when they view Congress as monolithic.
People are morons when they blame all of Congress for intransigence and inaction when (1) only one party wants to do nothing, and (2) only one party has been intransigent in negotiations.
And of course, by getting Americans to blame both parties for intransigence instead of just one, this party has essentially succeeded in poisoning the well.
My idea has always been we need to enact A) No term limits, you can hold the same office as many times as you want, but combine that with B) No consecutive terms. That way you get a few years in, a few years out… during which the people can judge whether you did a good job… and then you can be re-elected based on your past merits.
Imagine how much more might get done if the politicians didn’t have to worry about immediate re-election too.
A confidence vote doesn’t sound like a bad idea but, as @Qingu pointed out, locally a lot of congressmen aren’t suffering nearly as much and even if several get dumped and replaced, it may not end the gridlock. You have to ask yourself, are you going to vote for single party control to help ensure everyone works better together even if their ideals are counter to your own?
@Qingu People are also morons when they think they are actually ‘employers’ of them. They are the ‘electorate’. Employers have more control over their employees and have a better idea of what they’re up to. The electorate is voluntarily ignorant.
Oops, my mistake, it was @tedd who pointed out congressmen are doing better locally – apologies.
Part of the problem is that Congress is actually fairly representative of our society. Look at all of the opposing viewpoints we have here on Fluther! The Rich have all the money, the Rich need more money, open the borders, close the borders, Freedom is important, Freedom takes a back seat to delusions of security…
They are a microcosm of our diverse nation.
Another problem is structural. Our congress is basically designed to favor gridlock, the Senate in particular. Reforming filibuster rules so a 50-vote majority actually counts as a majority in the Senate would go a long way, though that would not mean the Senate and the House would get along when controlled by opposing parties.
@Qingu You seem to be such an unhappy and vitriolic fellow. Reps have had the House for a year. Dems had both houses since the middle of the second Bush term. “Gridlock”, by definition, takes at least two entities. Please don’t make me explain these simple things again. Just write your post and then wait 30 minutes before pushing the “answer” button.
What are you talking about? The major gridlock has all taken place since Reps took over the house—the 2010 budget negotiations, and particularly the debt ceiling negotiations. And if you’ll recall John Boehner said he got 98% of what he wanted out of those negotiations.
@Qingu I don’t think you need to reform the filibuster, just use the damn thing. If the Republicans want to filibuster good legislation, let them stand up there and read names from the phone book or list the stupid reasons they disagree with the legislation.. just like the system was meant to do.
Worked out great for them during the civil rights stuff. Let the whole nation see just how stupid they are acting.
@Qingu Do they actually filibuster anymore? I seem to recall that it does not actually, physically happen; that it is only the threat of one that occurs and ties things up as though it did.
We’ve seen problems with term limits in California – an Assembly where it takes people a full term to even figure out how things worked, followed by their last term where they are looking for their next position. Meanwhile, lobbyists become the only consistent presence with any institutional memory.
It’s not that I want term limits on my Congressman, I want term limits on your Congressman !
It’s an astoundingly worthless poll question “Yes/No Do you approve?”
I really don’t care about the opinion of someone who could not respond to this: “Name specific actions Congress has taken and whether you approve or do not approve of those actions.”
The Yes/No poll includes a lot of people who couldn’t tell you a single fact about Congress, it’s duties or its performance.
Frankly, I think we could use a system similar to jury duty in filling congress. Your name gets picked, and you go and fulfill your civic duty for 2 years. Your bills are paid by the government so you don’t lose your house etc, and your job is there for you when you return. We trust the general populace to decide prosecution (sometimes even life or death). Why not let them make the laws?
@Qingu “Gridlock”, by definition, takes at least two entities.
@Qingu They do not filibuster. They hold votes of confidence that will allow legislation to move on without filibuster. To pass one of those votes they need a supermajority (60/100). Generally accepted practice is to hold that vote, and if it fails give up on the legislation. The only thing stopping that legislation from coming to a regular vote or debate is that since it failed the supermajority someone can filibuster it.
They call it filibustering, but unless they have to get up in front of congress and talk it’s not a filibuster.
(also, once a filibuster is over, the legislation moves on to vote/debate… which is why I say make the idiots do it…. as soon as they look like idiots and exhaust themselves, you win and we get to vote)
The last real filibuster was in 1992. New York Senator Alfonse D’Amato controlled congressional business for 15 hours and 14 minutes, at one point reciting names at random.
If that’s how you want to arbitrarily define gridlock, fine. Then there is no gridlock, there is just obstructionism, which takes one party.
And it takes a special brand of ignorance, or a special brand of dishonesty, to blame said obstructionism on both parties.
@tedd, I don’t think they actually have to make a speech 24/7 to filibuster anymore, which is why cloture vote functions the same way now.
@Qingu No they in fact totally do have to. But for some reason neither side has actually made the other do it. The Republicans let the Dems get away with it back during the Bush 2 era as well.
Congressmen and weathermen seem to be the only people that keep there job despite being wrong the majority of the time. I suggest that we install a congressional draft system. There are too many “professional” players involved. Congress like military service should be considered an obligation, not a career. I would support an elected Senate to keep reign on the Congress but if anyone really wants the job, he or she should definitely not get it.
Would I run for Congress, certainly not, would I accept the job if drafted, of course as long as there was a certain end date.
@plethora Given the number of times in recent history that the Republicans have refused to do anything until they get their way, I have to say that I think you have your facts wrong. Whether both parties play the same games or not, the GOP is far from innocent, especially since much of the mess we are currently in is due to their policies.
If you want to play the blame game then either blame both parties or, if you must pick only one, blame the one with the more egregious history.
All of these ideas about Congressional reform seem pointless to me. Why don’t you just vote for decent Congress people, and accept that in a democracy idiots will often vote for shitty elected officials?
@jerv No, I do not think the Republicans are innocent. Nor are the Dems. As for the current mess, there is plenty of blame to go around on both parties. I might assign more to the Dems, you to the Reps. Either way, both are covered up in it.
@Ron_C Great idea!!
A strong 3rd party that is not in the hip pocket of either Twiddle Dee, or Twiddle Dumb is the only real fix.
@plethora Then choose your words more carefully. You sound less delusional now, but still more than a bit skewed in your perceptions. That goes a thousand-fold for your first post in this thread. Just saying…
@Qingu
Should I vote for Kang or Kodos?
How do I vote for decent representatives if they can’t afford to run?
@jerv Always good to be less delusional…:) Thanks for your comments.
@phaedryx Neither. Go ahead, throw your vote away!
@plethora I always like to give a dose of perspective ;)
@jerv which I always value from you
God, @Qingu is right about the congressional reforms. Screw it.
I love the idea that anyone who wants to get into politics should be strictly forbidden to do so. There is too much money in the monster. It’s entirely too corrupt.
When did it start?
” I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.”
Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845)
I actually like the idea expressed by @GladysMensch about treating it as a civic duty. You could start on the local level and work up through the state to national. Give folks an opt out if they absolutely do not want to do it however.
@Qingu “Why don’t you just vote for decent Congress people, and accept that in a democracy idiots will often vote for shitty elected officials?”
The problem is that Federal office elections are strictly controlled by the two parties and a successful candidate is not counted in votes but dollars raised. Everyone agrees (in both parties) that we cannot have free elections until private money is taken out of the process. We also have two parties that fight to insure that real government funding of the election process never happens. It seems that even if a person is elected to office with the intention of opening up the system, that person is politically or financially subverted. Look at what happened to Grayson in Florida. Speaking truth to power in the U.S. gets you fired like Congressman Grayson or thrown into prison like Bradley Manning. The absolutely worst thing you can do in America, today, is tell the truth. That is also why the Wall St. protesters are vilified or ignored by both major parties.
@Ron_C I disagree. In the end, a successful candidate is indeed counted in votes. That’s how they get elected; people vote for them. That’s how it works; they can’t actually buy votes. They buy ads and name recognition. Though it do agree, perhaps not with your examples in particular, that the worse thing a candidate can do is tell the truth but that is because Americans don’t want to hear the truth. The American electorate has, in it’s power, an antidote for the influence of big money and that is to be less apathetic and more informed and to choose for themselves.
@lillycoyote ” Americans don’t want to hear the truth. The American electorate has, in it’s power, an antidote for the influence of big money and that is to be less apathetic and more informed and to choose for themselves.” There are a couple problems with the above statement. First, if there is a large amount of noise, lies, and exaggeration, the average American doesn’t have the time or inclination to separate truth from chaff. Secondly, less than half of the electorate actually votes, even in presidential years.
There are many reasons that Americans don’t participate in the democratic process. The first reason is apathy caused by the deliberate lack of truly innovative candidates. Both parties cherry pick to insure that their candidates toe the party line. Secondly, most people get their new from television networks and the more they listen to them, especially Fox, the less they actually know about issues. Third, both parties make it hard to vote. Election Day is always a work day and it is very difficult for those of us that still have jobs to get to the polling places. The conservatives in about 35 states have made it even more difficult requiring special photo I.D. to exercise their right to vote. These rules were put in place to cure a virtually non-existent “voter fraud” problem. In truth conservatives know that the fewer people that vote, the better their chances are to win.
@Ron_C Regarding your third point, here in King County, WA, we mail it in.
@Ron_C Exactly my point. That ” the average American doesn’t have the time or inclination to separate truth from chaff” and that “less than half of the electorate actually votes, even in presidential years” is exactly the problem. That is voter apathy and disengagement. Too busy for democracy? Too bad. Too busy to be a government of the people? Too bad. Make the time. If Americans are unwilling to do that then we deserve what we get. Americans get the candidates the deserve and that they demand. If they cared, if they participated, if they informed themselves, the candidates, our leaders, would rise up to meet them. And if a lot Americans are getting their news from Fox it is exactly because they don’t want to hear the truth. It is in our power to get the government we want. This is not a dictatorship. We just have to care, pay attention and demand it.
The overwhelming majority of Americans alive today inherited a country that was already fully formed, already “done,” built with the blood, sweat and tears of previous generations; all we have to to is maintain it, take care of it. If people can’t even be bothered to do that then I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them. I just hope I don’t live long enough to see my fellow Americans throw it all away because they couldn’t be bothered, because they were too busy or too fucking lazy to care.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
