Troper Think Tank: What is the best way to fix the USA Congress?

First of all, keep this realistic. We are not at a stage where armed revolution is necessasry, so that is out.

Also, let's keep a cool head. Angry people make mistakes.

We need to get to the heart of the problem, which I believe is Congress being too out of touch with the people.

The best solution to this is replacing our current congress with a smarter Congress, a Congress that is concerned with the American people.

Now, we need to figure out a way to do this. Suggestions?

Proportional representation, modifying (and adding) term lengths and limits and such, altering how congressmembers are paid, enacting vote system reform, etc.

It's not that hard, really. It's merely that the people who have to do it (Congress) stand to lose out the most if it happens, thus creating an oxymoronic catch-22 kind of situation...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Term limits are a good idea. The President has them, what makes Congress any different?

The problem is implementation. For these changes to pass, it has to get through...Congress.

We need to get the American people to organize ourselves so we have a fighting chance, for one.

Actually, a lot of that stuff would (and should) be done as a constitutional amendment, in addition to getting money away from politics as much as possible.

Problem is, Congress is the easiest way to get said amendment. The hard way is getting the States to do it...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think the most immediate solution is to get the congressmen who are easily subject to cronyism—in this case, allowing lobbyists to dictate what legislation they want passed in Congress via campaign contributions—kicked out.

I still say recall elections are a viable option for that; I honestly don't know what needs to be done in order to get a recall election going, but it's worth trying to get a movement going on Congress' worst offenders, such as Patrick Leahy and Lamar Smith. If they were successfully removed from office due to their aggressive and arrogant push to pass PROTECT IP and SOPA, that would send a message to our other congressmen that the American public isn't going to stand for a blatant disregard for the interests of the people.

Getting legislation passed to prevent this kind of thing from happening is harder, like USAF said. There is no limit on how many times a congressman can serve (ref. Strom Thurmond and his 50ish years in office); putting an absolute limit on that may help. I think the bigger problem, though, is campaign contributions.

Recall elections may be a good idea as well (I dunno for sure). You get one started, traditionally, by getting enough petition signatures for it. Or at least, I think so. I'm not sure if it's a universal procedure or not.

I am now known as Flyboy.

On the subject of campaign contributions, there's something interesting here; the Supreme Court stuck down the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 as violating the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions, during a court case in January of 2010. John McCain (one of the sponsors of the act) noted, "We are going to see now an inundation of special-interest money into political campaigns [...] I think that diminishes the influence of average citizens."

He also predicted "a backlash would occur when people see the amounts of unfettered money, from corporations and unions, that will go into political campaigns."

Rather prophetic.

edited 17th Dec '11 11:04:43 AM by TrevMUN

There's got to be a way to make the individual congresspersons know that they are delegates sent from the people of the respective states, not just federal officials. I think that's a key point for "Congress being too out of touch with the people."

Fix the election system so that it's better representative of the government. That avoids two-party gridlocks.

I may sound biased here, but ever since I learned about the Republican no-tax pledge (which seems more active at federal level), I can't help but feel that we need to throw that out.

Maybe the problem is that both houses need to agree on everything, and separately at that. Certain bills should be done by joint sessions, not agreement on each house. Each house should have more individual freedom. On that note, the Senate is more powerful, so we should give the House some more power - on the condition that we fix it so it's a better institution.

Finally, educate the public more on the role of the Congress. This body is the one that makes our national laws. The president shouldn't take all the hits.

edited 17th Dec '11 11:05:02 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Electing Democrats.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Partisanship is not going to solve the problem.

Patrick Leahy is a Democrat senator from Vermont, and he's behind both COICA and PROTECT IP. He's also been funneled quite a lot of campaign contributions from the parties that would stand to benefit.

Ironically, that's also true of McCain and he's a co-sponsor of PROTECT IP. The fact is, there's a lot of Republicans and Democrats who have their hands dirty here.

edited 17th Dec '11 12:07:08 PM by TrevMUN

Education is going to have to be at the core of it all.

My buddy and I were chatting and some ideas were had.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Give each member of Congress a gun with single bullet. Once they vote on something, divide them into two teams: Those who support and those who oppose. Let them duke out. Once everyone had their shots, revote. Repeat untill you have unanimous decision.

A related idea I had was a limited form of "No running for one office to break a term with another". We see too many senators/governors serving a year and running for presidency.

However, I think that consecutive terms should remain to some extent, or there's going to be instability with people constantly going in and our. That's also a problem with term limits.

Now using Trivialis handle.

On the contrary. Stability in policy should be a result of compromise and cooperation. They're like little kids, they won't learn to share unless you make it clear they won't get to play with the toys until they do.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I think it would be more amusing to give them all six-shooters... but five of the six chambers are loaded with blanks.

Mass Russian Roulette... for the loss?

Yeah, no, that's a terrible idea.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Put an end to lobbying. Completely.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

I don't know that that's necessarily a good idea, per se.

What we should really focus on is getting it to the point where everyone has an equal ability to lobby, rather than letting the select privileged have access to the politicians as it is now. After all, there has to be some way for them to get informed of what we want after they get elected. It just needs to be representative.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I would say that the biggest problem with the US Congress is the effect of campaign donations and lobbying from special interests. It's an extremely complex problem. There are a couple of features that you need to understand. First, there is a difference between campaign contributions on the one hand, and the money lobbyists spend on Congressmen between elections, to influence policy (that spending is larger than campaign contributions, by the way). Most proposed reforms only address campaign contributions.

Money spent on influencing elections comes in two forms: direct contributions to candidates, and so-called "independent" contributions to entities that mostly pay for single-issue advirtising. In addition, either direct or independent contributions come from two sources: private individuals or corporations. So there are four types of money to regulate during an election: 1) Direct contributions from individuals 2) Direct contributions from corporations 3) independent contributions by individuals 4) independent contributions by corporations.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate direct contributions regardless of source. Before the Citizens United decision, Congress also had the right to regulate independent contributions by corporations, which they capped (independent contributions by private persons were unlimited). Citizens United changed that, and now corporations and private persons have to be treated the same. Both are now allowed to give unlimited amounts to independent entities.

So- reform now has a lot of barriers in the way. Various reforms have been proposed to limit the way direct contributions are made- for example the Fair Elections Now Act of 2010, which was narrowly defeated in the House, proposed using tax money to help fund elections by candidates that voluntarily limited themselves to small donations. Another was the DISCLOSE act- this would have required organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. This too, was defeated in the House. Money fights back.

Regulating independent contributions is another issue, and would probably require an amendment to the Constitution, since it involves giving Congress, or some other body, the right to regulate free speech. Senator Bernie Sandors (D-VT) has proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would take away the "personhood" of corporations. Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado have proposed something very similar (I actually like theirs better, since it seem more far-reaching).

However, as none of these proposals seem to have much chance of passing in this Congress, which isn't surprising since Congress currently seems captured by the very monied interests that these proposals seek to correct, there has been some movement toward calling a Constitutional Convention independent of Congress which could propose an amendment that would then have to be passed by the States (a so-called "Article V" convention). For example, Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig recently called for one in his book "Republic, Lost". Also, there has been talk about this at the various Occupy forums (see http://www.themultitude.org/forum/) and other sites (http://foavc.org/).

Dont give up, get involved.

edited 17th Dec '11 12:34:23 PM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

So I think we have a general consensus that lobbyism is a problem.

A constitutional convention seems like a good way to go, and there is precedent for it. The Constitution was ordained by the People, therefore the People have the power to alter it beyond the constraints of Congress.

We need to get organized though, or nothing will happen.

Not possible so long as there are major corporations. Just put an end to lobbying.

edited 17th Dec '11 12:42:20 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Well ... Generally I'm not one for anti-corporate attitudes, but I think you've got a point there, at least where lobbying as campaign contributions are concerned. Corporations are recognized as legal persons, and as the Supreme Court demonstrated by striking down that 2002 act limiting campaign contributions, the Bill of Rights applies to them as much as any actual citizen.

Which actually kind of scares me.

edited 17th Dec '11 12:49:53 PM by TrevMUN

True. But what is defined as lobbying?

Since, you know, I would think that simple things like sending letters to congresspeople or writing petitions or whatnot are lobbying, as well. They aren't particularly grand or hugely influential most of the time, but they are important.

Such is what I mean, and why I question the idea.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@De Marquis, among others:

I've been saying this before and I'll restate it: the states' rights advocates complaining that state powers in federal government has diminished have nothing to complain about. It's ultimately the states that have the power to make changes to the entire republic at the end of the day, and they can stand up and make it happen at any time they wish to do so. I'll make a topic for this if you're interested.

That anti-corporate-personhood amendment sounds interesting, and it looks like it's one of our best shots at passing a new meaningful amendment, considering what's been happening in our Congress and elsewhere recently. It would also give us a chance to test out the constitutional convention option.

I wouldn't say we have a precedent for it, though (@Proffesor). The only time we used it was to establish the current constitution in the first place. But, we could try it out.

And I don't think it's just lobbyism. Lobbying after all is how the rest of the population speaks out to the congresspersons, to keep them in check from pursuing only their own interests. Rather, I think the elections system of the legislature should be changed.

edited 17th Dec '11 12:51:56 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Corporations are only bad if they are out of control. If they can control Congress then there is nothing stopping them, as evidenced in the past.

We need to get a more responsible Congress which can keep corporations in check, and then the people must keep Congress in check.

It's our job as the People to repair this situation since the government is having difficulty doing so.

Maybe, but the Federal Government is supreme. Unless you want to bring up Nullification again, and we know how THAT turned out...

edited 17th Dec '11 12:52:51 PM by TheProffesor

Whoa, hey, I didn't even notice the anti-corporate "personhood" legislation De Marquis linked to.

The only real problem I'm concerned about is that legal personhood does serve a purpose since it allows the company itself to be sued rather than the owners; if your charter's a partnership or a sole proprietorship and you get sued, damages can be taken right out of your own personal property. You can literally get sued out of house and home.

I'll have to look into this more ...

edited 17th Dec '11 12:58:04 PM by TrevMUN