hacker

And of course, what if the American people realize they've made a mistake, and want to correct it two years into a four year congressional term? The President and his agenda become unpopular, and there is no way to force him to come to a compromise, without having to wait another two years

Congressmen a Senators are independent agents. They can vote however they wish. Even if elections were every four years they would still be independent. If the President was republican but enough republicans in the Senate, irrespective of party, oppose his policies they would not be enacted. What changes in your structure, that you think is so effective, if elections are held only every 4 years?
If they were also beholden to only registered voters vouchers for campaign funds when they do run, they would be responding to public need and will ...rather than obeying the wants and needs of their corporate benefactors...

Take your argument about changing public will the opposite direction... Why not hold elections every year? That would give the public the ability to change their minds annually. Wouldn't that be better?

The problem with election every two years is the constant need to raise money, the constant need to continuously campaign, and the inability to actually work on governance... Example. The President decision on the pipeline was held up for 7 months to get past the midterms.. If there were no mid terms the decision, for better or for worse, would have been made and acted upon.
Better that something be done, then uncertainty continue....no?

Congressmen a Senators are independent agents

Yes and no. It is common belief, even among Americans, that the United States Constitution was intended to create three, co-equal branches of government with the overt powers to check and balance one another equally. That was not the "original intent" in any way. If one reads the Federalist Papers (or as many of them as you can stand to read) carefully, one finds that the "founding fathers" (or "Publius" at any rate) believed that in a republic, the legislature is supposed to be the most active and aggressive portion of the government. While Hamilton argued for an "energetic" executive, he and Madison still believed the President and the Federal Judiciary would end up taking a back-row seat to the Congress.

Today it is much closer to the theory of the equality between the branches. I think you said 95% of bills in Parliament are government bills, the rest are the rarely-enacted "private member" bills. I am not sure of the exact numbers but despite what I just said I'm pretty sure it's something close to the exact opposite. The vast majority of bills introduced get lost in committee, and I'm not sure if measures proposed to congress by the president get any kind of special treatment (they'd certainly get more publicity).

What has changed, Ricky, is that the threat of a presidential veto can shape legislation. It's merged the executive power into the legislative process to the point where this might as well be a parliamentary democracy (I mentioned that in my first post of this thread I think). Of course, no one gets elected president who says they'll be the best caretaker president in the world and let congress have the helm running the country. On the other hand, the interference today would be unthinkable under the Administration of say, Adams, or someone early on. Couldn't give you an exact date when it changed, but it has.

OK, so you guys are trying to tell me that if my congressman had to campaign half as often, every four years instead of every two, he'd have to raise less money and therefore start listening to me and my neighbors (i.e., his actual constituents) and not PACs and CEOs? Can you give me a dollar-amount how much less, in general, a congressman would raise (or no longer have to raise) because his/her term was two years longer?

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea, I just think you guys are dead wrong about this. If I extended Mr. Van Hollen's term by a couple years, he's still going to raise money, and he's still raising it from "them" and not "us", if you get my drift. I do not care if the exact dollar-amount he ends up raising is a bit less. That's not the point. The crux of the problem is what I just mentioned: he's listening to PACs and CEOs and not me. You'll end up changing the dollar-amount, not the actual problem (but creating others in the process).

Yes, I think 2 years is better than four, Sassenach. In fact, I'll go so far as to wish that the People of Maryland were smart enough that they'd approve an amendment to the state constitution (but they're probably not) to make the delegates' terms 2 years instead of 4. It's far too long to wait to foist the bastards (or threaten to foist the bastards) out of their cozy little chairs.

Also, I had a question.

I'm pretty sure I did not ask this, but how does a government "lose confidence"? And how does a motion of no confidence work, in Canada and the UK? If you think I asked this I'll look above (I said I'd keep track of some of this in a notebook and I have with some of it).

The Aussie I met mentioned something about a "trigger" for a prime minister to ask the GG for an election. (That's not Canada/UK but I'm guessing there is something similar, as all three are parliamentary systems, albeit with their important differences.)

rickyp

. If the President was republican but enough republicans in the Senate, irrespective of party, oppose his policies they would not be enacted.

hacker

Yes and no

Hacker, are congressmen and Senators independent agents or not? Can they vote as they wish ?
If so, then the answer can only be yes...
Regardless of where legislation starts, the independence of the member ensures that the supposed "tyranny" that you envision isn't genuine.
And please answer... if elections every 2 years is so important to allow the electorate to correct a mistake or change their minds, why not elections every year? Wouldn't that be an improvement for you? If not, why not?

hacker

I'm quite sympathetic to the idea, I just think you guys are dead wrong about this. If I extended Mr. Van Hollen's term by a couple years, he's still going to raise money, and he's still raising it from "them" and not "us", if you get my drift. I do not care if the exact dollar-amount he ends up raising is a bit less. That's not the point. The crux of the problem is what I just mentioned: he's listening to PACs and CEOs and not me. You'll end up changing the dollar-amount, not the actual problem (but creating others in the process)

With half the elections the best estimate would be 50% less money...
And if he has to listen to PACs and corporations less often ... because he needs their money less often, ... then there's room for more independent action and thought.
Often the most independent members are the one;s who have decided to leave Congress. They no longer need the money ....

But, the fundamental problem is ... money. With publicly financed elections,things would change drastically. Especially if individuals had vouchers and the right to direct them to the parties and candidates of their choice. Third parties could arise more easily. And with an end to the duopoly more room for compromise and greater room for the introduction of new ideas.

It won't happen of course. The system works too well for the very wealthy and they will resist any change to something that has been a benefit to them so well for so long. If you want a clue, look for Republicans to try and eliminate Dodd Frank. Only 6 years after an unfettered financial services industry brought the world to its knees.. and had to be back stopped and bailed out by ordinary tax payers..

Bernie Saunders made a point on Bill Mahers show the other night. He said, "Most Republicans (but not James Imhofe) in Congress understand climate change, publicly they disavow their understanding because they are so beholden to Koch and the Oil and coal industries. That's why now they say "I'm not a climate scientist, so i just don't know. Over half of Republican voters agree that climate change is real and a vital issue. Which would indicate that it should be safe politically to espouse a position politically within the republican party recognizing this...except that it doesn't matter what the rank and file republicans actually think.

A government "loses the confidence of the house" when they lose a vote on a motion of non-confidence. Some motions on non-confidence are automatic (The Budget) but most must be proposed.

Non-Confidence motions are seldom if ever successful when the government has a majority of seats. But, back in the 80's Joe Clark lost one simply because they couldn't get enough members to the house to vote... which lead to Trudeau's come back in the subsequent election.

Can you give me a dollar-amount how much less, in general, a congressman would raise (or no longer have to raise) because his/her term was two years longer?

Silly question. Show me how much money they had to raise this time and that's how much they'd save over a 4 year period. Arguably they'd save even more because if all Congressional elections coincided with Presidential elections then a lot of the money spent on the Presidential campaign would also benefit individual Congressmen.

I saw an estimate recently that the typical newly elected Congressman will need to spend an average of about 40% of their time raising money for the next contest. This is absolutely batshit insane. You can't seriously try to tell me that longer terms wouldn't help reduce this and therefore free up more time for these people to do their job.

Sassenach wrote:

Can you give me a dollar-amount how much less, in general, a congressman would raise (or no longer have to raise) because his/her term was two years longer?

Silly question. Show me how much money they had to raise this time and that's how much they'd save over a 4 year period. Arguably they'd save even more because if all Congressional elections coincided with Presidential elections then a lot of the money spent on the Presidential campaign would also benefit individual Congressmen.

I saw an estimate recently that the typical newly elected Congressman will need to spend an average of about 40% of their time raising money for the next contest. This is absolutely batshit insane. You can't seriously try to tell me that longer terms wouldn't help reduce this and therefore free up more time for these people to do their job.

Having spent 4 years working on the staff of a Pa State Senator (who have 4 year terms) I can tell you they spend just as much time fund raising as a US Congressman does.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/30/5949581/mo ... ts-explain

This is a little out of date. Things have gotten worse since 2012.
The 13th slide is right on point as to the amount of time congressmen spend on raising money...
The rest, makes the case that the root problem is money....
A form of public finanmcing like vouchers would end the madness and return democracy. (see particularly slide 26. )

Silly question. Show me how much money they had to raise this time and that's how much they'd save over a 4 year period.

No it is not a silly question. My point in asking it is to place some skepticism that the amount of money "saved" (e.g., not raised by congressmen now that they have a 4 instead of a 2 year term) would be significant in reducing the REAL problem at heart, the crux of the problem, I think I put it. You would not, repeat not, take care of the problem of the actual effects of congressional greasing-up one wit. You have no way of actually proving to me that they would end up having to raise less money with a four year term. Can you predict the future? I admit, it sounds like a reasonable educated guess but how can you know know that for sure? And I'm not just talking about quoting and rehashing someone else's academic paper, or because an article in the Washington Post said it or something. I mean real data that could prove it. Otherwise, you're asking Americans to take a risk that could end up probably alienating their congressmen from them even more by lengthening their terms of office. Again, I agree that it sounds logical but that does not mean it will translate into reality.

As I alleged above, the crux of the problem is not the exact dollar-amount raised. The crux of the problem is that, because of this fundraising, and the fact that it comes from PACs and CEOs and not "average" constituents such as myself. In other words, that some executive's or PAC chairman's vote is "bigger" than mine (he has a shitload more power within the system than I do as an average voter). (In other words, why my congressman listens to a corporate donor from California with a shitload of money to throw around before he listens to me, when he goes to vote.)


One solution would be to require that money congressmen raise for their campaigns must come from sources WITHIN their constituency (congressional districts as we call them). Then, even if they got some cash from a PAC or a corporation it would at least be one that employs locals (people in their constituency) and not an MNC located thousands of miles away that does not benefit the congressman's constituents. What do you think of that idea? I don't fully understand the voucher thing, however; it does not sound like a practical solution so far, though. Requiring a congressman's money to come from his own constituents, and not somebody else's, might actually solve some of the problem in a practical way.

Having spent 4 years working on the staff of a Pa State Senator (who have 4 year terms) I can tell you they spend just as much time fund raising as a US Congressman does.

You see? Right from the horse's mouth, that a four year term is a valiant idea that would result in no productive solution to the problem (and would create others in the mean time.) I can tell you that there's a reason that members of our General Assembly are only in session 90 days of the year: they're spending so much time on fundraising and schmoozing. Congressmen, on the other hand, are in session most of the year (I have to admit, they do actually "work" for a living, whatever you say about them [and who doesn't].)

Since you think senators are just as bad, and they have a SIX year term, how much do they end up raising? Can you prove to me that a senator's six year term causes less corruption in the Senate, or at least less time or money spent fundraising? Again, the heart of the matter is the fact that the average constituents are being ignored in favor of PACs and corporate executives.

Question: have ALL congressmen raised as much money as each other? See which have and haven't, and maybe there is a reason for that on a case-by-case basis. Like the nature of the politics of the area, the nature of the race involved. Not as an excuse, but I'm just curious to see.

Another question, and this has always made me wonder: if the districts are sufficiently gerrymandered to keep the bastards from losing their seats (or at least relinquish party control over those seats), why do they need to keep raising so much money? or did it just become habit?

Ricky, I don't doubt that things have gotten "worse" lately; but there's been congressional corruption (outright corruption, too, I mean really bad) since the days of the railroad barons. Have you seen the pilot of that show Hell on Wheels before?

And a third query: how many constituents are there to one member of the House of Commons? In Canada and/or in the United Kingdom? I do not know this for sure, I was "told" by someone that there is a limit of L. 6,000 an MP may spend on his campaign fund. Is that true?

And to answer Rickyp's question:

Hacker, are congressmen and Senators independent agents or not? Can they vote as they wish ?
If so, then the answer can only be yes...
Regardless of where legislation starts, the independence of the member ensures that the supposed "tyranny" that you envision isn't genuine.
And please answer... if elections every 2 years is so important to allow the electorate to correct a mistake or change their minds, why not elections every year? Wouldn't that be an improvement for you? If not, why not?

Well again, Ricky, yes and no. I cannot give you a definite answer on that as it is more complicated. In your system, I'd imagine they have more autonomy---to a point. Sure they can vote as they wish but with the level of presidential "interference" in the legislative process being much higher than it was "in the beginning" (When God Created Texas, Earth, and the United States of America), However, there is still an advantage to being on the president's "coattails", especially during an election year. This year was an exception: with his low approval rating, he was something of a pariah. He appeared in Maryland for Anthony Brown (probably because no one else wanted him). But only briefly, and they made sure Hillary Clinton's and Bill Clinton's visits to the Free State were far more publicized than the President's. The converse of that is true with a popular president. During Clinton's presidency, he was traveling to Maryland to support Governor Paris Glendening, if I remember correctly.

You can "correct a mistake" much quicker than that in a parliamentary system, with the motion of no-confidence, correct? If a government really screws something up, there can be a new election within 6 months (theoretically). Not being Canadian, I wouldn't know but from what you all have told me it's possible, no?

Also, part of the reason your MPs do not campaign as much, or spend as much of their time fund-raising, [again, I theorize only] is because they can't: there's no 100% definite date for the next general election in Parliament. Once the election is announced, you have, what, 60 days to the date of the actual general election to campaign? The five year term of the UK Parliament, ditto in Canada, is a maximum. Elections can happen at any time, theoretically, correct? The biblical expression (not that I'm that religious) "You know neither the time nor the hour" is appropriate, from what I can tell. It seems that the fact that they know the exact length of their term, whether it's 6 for a senator or 2 for a representative, they're campaigning because they know precisely when the next election is: every even year, on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, the new Congress always assembling on January 3 at noon immediately thereafter. You can set your watch [calendar, rather] to it.

Now to answer the other part of your question, if elections were EVERY year, that would just be a pain in the ass. The American people seem in general agreement that 2 years is better than 1, (or certainly better than six months in the case of the RI lower house in the 1780s, according to the Federalist Papers). Publius is right when he says (though not in these exact words) that 6 months or one year would just be annoyingly redundant. But four years or would be too long, and he even criticizes New York's three-year term. Remember, I said that Americans are lazy when it comes to voting. "What, you mean we have to vote AGAIN? We just did that LAST year!" (An attitude which would account for low turnout in primaries.) I'm surprised some states have runoff elections, and I would be even more surprised if that many people actually bother to vote in both rounds!

To us, a 2 year cycle is now "normal". We've been doing it for 225 years now, and part of proper constitution-writing [and amending] involves more than just institutions, but the needs and norms of the People themselves: what they are comfortable with, and what they are used to, and what fits in with their country's political culture. And even if a two year term does, as you gentlemen insist, requires frequent campaigning, wasn't that the entire point? The House is supposed to be "the People's House" out of the two, the two-year term keeping the congressmen on their toes, while not requiring annoyingly frequent general elections. And I do not know too many people who consider 2 year cycles annoyingly frequent. OK, I know 435 who do, actually! (If congressmen themselves consider it annoyingly frequent, so much the better. I sleep better at night knowing it annoys them to have to "report back" to the people every two years.)

OK just found it in Wikipedia, 36 days but no theoretical maximum for a "campaign" to last before the voting occurs in Canada.

In the UK the only thing I could find is that it has to be on a Thursday?

Much in the way that the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy while cheaper than Encyclopedia Galactica, surpasses it in most ways, I have come to rely more on Wikipedia than on the venerable Encylopaedia Britannica. Danivon, you were right.

Wait, 17 days after the proclamation by the Crown announcing the dissolution of the House of Commons? You only have 17 days to campaign?? I can see, however that I am partially wrong: I noticed there's a Fixed Term Parliament act or something like that. So 5 years unless it's dissolved earlier by the failure to form a government within 14 days after a motion of no-confidence, or if 2/3 of the House votes to dissolve itself. Ah...

And wait, it says six weeks before the election that any ministry can't communicate officially with the People (purdah or something). Um...so, there's a gap of time between the PM asking for an election and the Crown "proclaiming" it? So that's really more than 17 days to campaign then, no?

You've misunderstood the argument. I never said that 4 year terms would be a magic bullet to fix corruption, I said that it would allow for a longer term view for the legislators because they wouldn't be immediately plunged back into a re-election campaign as soon as they took their seat.

I'm glad to hear that. But we already have members of Congress whose terms give them a "longer term view". They're called senators. A term three times as long as that as a congressman's, and they are only turned over only 1/3 at a time. That was the whole point of the Senate. And it's already there, no constitutional amendment necessary. These 2 aspects already give at least temporary insulation from public "whim" and that is why they are entrusted with tasks the members of the House of Representatives aren't (reviewing treaties, approving or rejecting presidential appointments, acting as the actual court or "jury" of impeachments, and slightly different rules of parliamentary procedure, etc.)

I think it was other arguments whirling around here at the same time that gave me the impression you were saying it would reduce corruption as well as bring other benefits.

The only view an extended term would give the members of the lower house of the United States Congress would be a greater feeling of their entitlement to be in power, and to retain it. The delegates present at the Philadelphia Convention did not do a perfect job when they wrote the Constitution of 1787, but they could have done much worse. For some reason, the delegates seemed to think that 4 years was too long to wait. And I am in total agreement. A four year term would engender a feeling of angst among Americans for having to wait so long.

You were sayiing that it would reduce the gridlock risk by having a four year term coincident with that of the president right? I think gridlock is a risk we have to take. yes, it has been a pain in the ass of late. but think that in the future it may not be. Do you want another Richard Nixon? (e.g., the "imperial presidency") I sure do not. Sometimes having Congress a different party than the president enables Congress to clip his wings a bit when he gets ahead of himself. Not talking about Obama, but you're thinking short term. Maybe this time you think things would have been better. But did you like it when George W. Bush had a much easier time his first 6 years, than the last 2? (e.g., the last two years was a solidly Democratic Congress, the first six years was a Republican congress that could rubber stamp him if necessary? Get virtually anybody he wanted on the bench or in his executive administration? Think about that! We do not know what the future will bring, so let's not be short sighted and come up with solutions keeping mostly the present in mind....)

You've got to see by now, that the possibility of Congress being from a different party as the executive is healthy for the American system (not always, but quite often). If Congress can act only as rubber-stamp for the Presidency, what point is there in having one? Change the term of office to four years and you've immediately wiped out the possibillity of forcing the president to compromise. It's a double-edged sword. But a necessary one for us to arm ourselves with. If that were not the case, we would have demanded a change by now. But lets think long-term, here.

I just did a little checking on UK & Canadian parliament statistics. The "quotient" for each of the 10 provinces determines how many constituents an MP represents, statistically (I found that therre are less ridings than there are seats in the House of Commons for a few reasons...and smaller provinces are totally overrepresented).

The average national quotient used to determine how many seats a province gets in the House of Commons, and in relation, the number of constituents an MP must take care of, is way lower. It ranges from 33,963 (Prince Edward Island) to 117,513 (Alberta). Odd, since Ontario is the most populous province (or possibly Quebec), or so I thought (could be wrong) whose quotient is 114,720. (Three territories each get only one seat in the House, so I didn't include them.)

In the British House of Commons, the average MP seems to have between almost 60,000 to somewhat under 85,000 constituents (I flipped through it pretty quickly....looking for 10 Canadian provinces and 3 territories was all right but I am not looking through 650 constituencies one by one...sorta flipped through the numbers pretty quickly but that's what I saw.)

Do you guys not think that part (not all!!!) of our problem is the fact that it's easier to listen to the "democratic elite" (the PACs, corporate interests, etc.) than to the average constituent is because they have no way of really knowing them, street by street, county by county? Even the leadership of the local party organizations? I could not find the number for the United States Congress, but I'm pretty sure that guy who worked for the Victory Fund told me it's close to about 725,000 constituents to one member of the House of Representatives. Plus, some senators' constituents have it much, much worse (as do the senators themselves). Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin share a flock of 5,773,623. But their unluckiest counterparts, Barbara Boxer and Dianna Feinstein of California must oversee the needs of 37,253,956 constituents. The two GOP senators representing Wyoming are the luckiest, with "only" 563,626 constituents to take care of (though over a geographically large state).

Part of the reason? Not an excuse for it, certainly. But 725,000 is bigger than many cities in the United States (or Canada or the UK for that matter). If a British MP had that many constituents, using a population of the UK of almost 64,000,000 (taking 64 mil divided by 725,000), your House of Commons would consist of no more than 88 MP's. And if we used the [half assed guess] average I came up with (70,000/1 MP) in our system, the House of Representatives would consist of approximately 4,400 congressmen (!!!!!!!) (308 mil/70,000).

Just a thought....sorry if that seemed slightly off topic...but it's at least 10% of the reason, figuratively speaking, of why they listen to corporate donations/special interests before their actual constituents.

Data courtesy of:
Wikipedia, "Canadian House of Commons", http://www.wikipedia.org, accessed November 14, 2014.
Wikipedia, "List of United Kingdom Parliament Constituencies", Ibid., Ibid.
CIA World Factbook, "United Kingdom", http://www.cia.gov, Ibid.
U.S. Census Bureau, "California", http://www.census.gov, Ibid.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Wyoming", Ibid., Ibid.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Maryland", Ibid., Ibid.
A calculator. Ibid.

hacker

Well again, Ricky, yes and no. I cannot give you a definite answer on that as it is more complicated. In your system, I'd imagine they have more autonomy---to a point.

yes you can. and do.
Hacker

Sure they can vote as they wish

duh.

For all your "complications" one of the things you've previously admired about your system and wondered about the British system, was the members greater independence versus a parliamentarians greater need and tradition for party discipline.

hacker

Do you guys not think that part (not all!!!) of our problem is the fact that it's easier to listen to the "democratic elite" (the PACs, corporate interests, etc.) than to the average constituent is because they have no way of really knowing them, street by street, county by county?

Once you get past several thousand constituents, the actual "knowing" everyone becomes impossible. Trying to keep things on a human scale, is easier when you don't allow unlimited amount of money into a campaign. Things like public debaes become much more important than 30 second television spots ...

The point is that, as you have agreed, those with a great deal of money to contribute, either directly to a campaign or through PACs and issue advertising, have the ear of the candidate.

Shorter campaign periods, and no "primaries" actually helps with controlling costs. Plus the shorter campaigns means that the attention of the electorate can be focused on the campaign issues. In the perennial campaign, or always on mode of politics in the US, voter wear out because the talking never stops.
That.s another reason why 2 year terms are indeed a problem. There is no significant period for the congress to actually govern. There either just getting their feet wet, in recess, or getting ready for the next big election and so avoiding anything that might be a difficult election issue...

By the way, for interest sake Hacker: A Canadian MP was recently convicted of election fraud. He overspent his limit and then lied about the expenditure. He was a significant member, being the PMs parliamentary secretary. He was turfed from the caucus when he was charged, and now faces loss of his seat as criminal punishment. Oh, turns out he resigned last week.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Del_Mastro