Are American Politics Broken?

[giblets]

That's what is nice about the US. Generally our Reps. and Senators don't march lock step with the party. So while we only have two parties on paper, in reality we have many more voting blocks and viewpoints. Which gives us huge diversity in Congress despite the letter people put next to their name.

There is an increasing tendency for congressmen to march lockstep with their party.

[Wezil]

Ozzy -

Your elections are so expensive because a monstrous ad buy by the unions/corporations/PACs has to be countered by an equally monstrous ad buy from the other side.

You've invented the cycle and yes, it can be broken (we did it).

[OzzyKP]

There is an increasing tendency for congressmen to march lockstep with their party.

During the Bush era, certainly. But not in the last four years. Obama can't at all wrangle the Democrats. Look at Ben Nelson and all the **** with the health care law. And now, since 2010, look at the Tea Party folks. The GOP has lost all the party discipline it had under Bush (a very good thing).

[OzzyKP]

Ozzy -

Your elections are so expensive because a monstrous ad buy by the unions/corporations/PACs has to be countered by an equally monstrous ad buy from the other side.

You've invented the cycle and yes, it can be broken (we did it).

You are a tenth of our size. Your districts are MUCH smaller. You've got like 300 MPs representing 30 million people. We've got 435 representing 300 million. BIG difference.

[Wezil]

Shall we look at larger populations than the US and see how much they spend? I haven't looked but I suspect I know what I would find.

[Wezil]

Your politicians have 10X the constituents to draw donations from than ours do.

[giblets]

During the Bush era, certainly. But not in the last four years. Obama can't at all wrangle the Democrats. Look at Ben Nelson and all the **** with the health care law. And now, since 2010, look at the Tea Party folks. The GOP has lost all the party discipline it had under Bush (a very good thing).

Sorry, but I disagree:

http://www.voteview.com/dwnomin_joint_house_and_senate.htm

There are less and less moderates as polarization increases.

The fact that the Democrats don't have 100% party discipline doesn't prove your point, because they never did. Every single Republican voted against the health care law even though the entire reform was taken from Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation.

[giblets]

Shall we look at larger populations than the US and see how much they spend? I haven't looked but I suspect I know what I would find.

How many democracies are larger than the US? India? I suspect we already know what we'll find.

[OzzyKP]

Shall we look at larger populations than the US and see how much they spend? I haven't looked but I suspect I know what I would find.

I don't have a great source for this, but I found this comment to an Ezra Klein article:

Per Capita the spending is not out of line with what happens in other countries. The Canadians spend $300 million, or $9. At $9 per capita we'd spend $2.8 Billion. Obama/McCain was half that. Add in winning House candidates (435*1.4 million is pretty close to $600 Million), and Senators (33 were up, they spent $9 each or $300 million) and you're up $2.3 Billion US.

Granted I haven't accounted for the expenditures of losing Congressional candidates, but a lot of those guys had no money to spend. Even if they spent as much as the winners we're to $3.2 Billion, which is pretty close to the $2.8 Billion Canada would be spending if they had our population.

Lots of people think there's too much money in our elections, but it's not clear that we'd spend a whole lot less if we funded our elections the way other rich democracies do. It's simply impossible to reach 300,000,000 Americans without a massive warchest.

[notyoueither]

Meh. Our local MPs don't represent their constituents now. What is the loss?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/24/matt-gurney-semi-rogue-tory-mp-shouldnt-underestimate-caucus-unrest/

They are already beholden to their party. Let's ditch the facade of local representation and be honest about it.

If independence of MPs from parties is desired it will hardly be obtained by making politicians more beholden to parties.

There are Westminster systems where MPs have a large degree of independence.

[C0ckney]

I would suppose a higher number of party toadies get in using party lists, no?

I can see that leading to an appearance of greater corruption.

i simply don't see how. if you were to say 'give the appearance of less independence' then i would agree, but corruption is a whole other issue.

That's the largest problem. The lack of representation for constituents. To solve one problem you undermine what to me is the most important function of our legislatures.

as weasel pointed out, this local representation is often a façade (i would in fact put it less strongly than him - there are still some good local MPs). in the UK parties routinely impose candidates on local constituencies, in 'safe seats', where the candidate has minimal or no links to the area. it's a party list without any of the advantages of such a system.

PR solves several major problems.

1) it allows people to clearly express their political preferences.
2) it destroys tactical voting, picking the lesser of two evils.
3) a) 'safe seats', which effectively render the votes of huge numbers of people worthless, become a thing of the past.
b) parties stop pandering solely to the voters of 'marginal' constituencies.
4) if every vote counts, it would go a long way to countering voter apathy.

[Wezil]

What constitutes a "good local MP"? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I really am interested in what you see in these people that puts them above the rest.

[Wezil]

Honour without the courage to act upon it is no virtue.

[Wezil]

I don't have a great source for this, but I found this comment to an Ezra Klein article:

The source of the cash is a critical distinction. Are the politico's beholden to GM, the UAW or the citizens (and sorry, despite your absurd SCOTUS ruling, GM is not a person...)?

[notyoueither]

i simply don't see how. if you were to say 'give the appearance of less independence' then i would agree, but corruption is a whole other issue.



as weasel pointed out, this local representation is often a façade (i would in fact put it less strongly than him - there are still some good local MPs). in the UK parties routinely impose candidates on local constituencies, in 'safe seats', where the candidate has minimal or no links to the area. it's a party list without any of the advantages of such a system.

PR solves several major problems.

1) it allows people to clearly express their political preferences.
2) it destroys tactical voting, picking the lesser of two evils.
3) a) 'safe seats', which effectively render the votes of huge numbers of people worthless, become a thing of the past.
b) parties stop pandering solely to the voters of 'marginal' constituencies.
4) if every vote counts, it would go a long way to countering voter apathy.

The solution to the problem of party power over MPs is not to give parties more power over MPs.

I would not be opposed to a number of MPs being chosen proportionally, or transferable ballots.

I am very much opposed to eliminating direct representation.