Outcumbents

[celestialife]

An interesting email came across my desk the other day. The jist of it was that Americans should elect officials to Congress who have never served before and not re-elect any individuals who have held positions as Representatives or Senators in the past. The reason for this, as it was stated in the email, was that we need a fresh start, new perspectives and new representation in Congress. A little history - elected officials were never supposed to be lifetime politicians. Being elected to office was originally meant to be a part-time job, so to speak. So my question would be to the members of the forum: do you think it would be a good idea to get rid of all the incumbent congress-people? Should being a state Representative or a Senator be a part time job? Your thoughts would be great!!!

[cylon]

I think it's a great sentiment but not practical. If you threw out every single incumbent, things would just stop abruptly and you'd have chaos. That would be like a revolution and I don't think it would go over that well.

But I completely get the spirit behind saying that though. I think right now there is a bit of a change going on, people are tired of electing representatives who go to Washington and then do the complete opposite of the things they said they'd do once they got there. If you stop re-electing these people, they won't take the people who elected them for granted.

[Double]

Oh thats great thinking! The system has corrupted the people sitting in there so lets just get some new ones inside!

No, the system has to go. Its only use is for corruption. Stateless society ftw

[Gabo]

What we absolutely need to do is get rid of all the political advantages incumbents have, to at least give other candidates a fair chance. I am all in favor of throwing supporters of the status quo out of Congress in favor of candidates that will actually work to make changes.

[SomeRandomGuy]

It would be an interesting test to see what power citizens truly have in the US government. Since the terms are staggered, it would not be possible to get rid of all incumbents at once. It would be a more gradual transition, so not quite as dramatic if it could be done with one election. If it were possible to do with a single election, I suspect (and fear) that the government would step in and pass a law preventing more than x % of the congress from being replaced by new members at one time. I am sure that the lame duck congressmen would be more than happy to vote for such a measure, even if the president vetoed it, they would likely have enough congressional support to override the veto.

Since it probably is not very practical to actually replace every member of congress, I wonder how effective it would be just to threaten to do so. If a campaign were launched whose aim to do that, would it be enough to show incumbents that the people are demanding change?

[YourHumbleNarrator]

I doubt it. It's one thing for people to ♥♥♥♥♥ and complain about who's already there but unless their power is actually threatened politicians aren't going to take it seriously.

In that case they probably would try to pass a law where only so many of them could be voted out at once. In that climate, it'd be a stupid move. The only thing that keeps a government running is the people's confidence. If there is no confidence, not even the illusion of it, the whole thing comes down.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by YourHumbleNarrator

I doubt it. It's one thing for people to ♥♥♥♥♥ and complain about who's already there but unless their power is actually threatened politicians aren't going to take it seriously.

In that case they probably would try to pass a law where only so many of them could be voted out at once. In that climate, it'd be a stupid move. The only thing that keeps a government running is the people's confidence. If there is no confidence, not even the illusion of it, the whole thing comes down.

There is thing called institutional memory which evey large organization needs to function properly. I think without some people who have served longer than one term the house and senate would be incapable of functioning.

I also believe that the propensity of incumbents to win even when their performance does not merit reelection is a problem. Term limits might be one solution. What other real world solutions would work?

[Brutha]

The reelection rates of US congressman are obscene. Even China has faster cycles of getting new people into power than the US.
The reelection rates shouldn't be 0% but they should be lower than they are at the moment.

Really the voters in the US are too blame for reelecting sitting members of congress too often because they know their names and faces while they don't recognize the names and faces of new people.

What other real world solutions would work?

Using a better voting system like proportional voting.

[celestialife]

It looks like some members of Congress are taking action on this one. Check it out here