

Congress's Approval Rating Hits 9% - dylangs1030
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/21/opinion/obeidallah-congress-failure/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

======
nextparadigms
This isn't happening just in USA. People in other countries too are realizing
that the Parliament is barely representing them anymore, and they are there
mostly to represent themselves.

Changing parties every 4 years has become more like a false choice, as the end
result seems to be more or less the same, with the parties being run by more
or less the same type of people.

I do believe it's a system problem, though. I think our democracies or
republics or whatever you want to call them are way overdue for some changes
and some evolution in the way they work. Any thoughts on how that could be
done? I think there ought to be some major changes, but also a lot of small
ones, too.

~~~
billpatrianakos
The major problem is that the powers that be have so ingrained themselves into
our politics that nothing short of a full on violent revolution will oust
them.

Its no secret anymore that our representatives actually represent their own
interests, not ours. I would argue that corporate interests are _not_ what
they represent. It's their _own_ interests. The lobbies give them money,
status and power. If a different suitor came along they would turn on their
current lobbyist buddies in a heartbeat if they got a better offer.

So right there, that needs to change. When the electorate is able to provide
the representatives with more incentive to represent us than the lobbyists do
only then will we get our representatives back. How do we take money out of
politics?

First we overturn the Citizens United ruling and end corporate personhood or
at least restrict what constitutes free speech for corporations. As long as
money is considered speech in politics we'll have trouble.

The problem with this is that money actually can be speech. We vote with our
wallet all the time. So how can we stop this without unintended side effects?

Government sponsored campaigns and strict limits on contributions is probably
the most common sense and easy way to do this. A system where there is a limit
to campaign expenses and the government subsidizes candidates that doesn't
have as much money as their opponent up to the limit is a good plan. I know
some states are trying to enact policies in that vein. I hope more do and
succeed.

------
billpatrianakos
Yeah, these guys are doing absolutely nothing helpful at all. You know why I'm
an entrepreneur? Because the job market is so shitty that it made more sense
to create my own job than be unemployed for an indefinite period of time. And
even if we're able to find a job it would pay below poverty levels. Before I
went into business I was a manager at a fast food restaurant. After two years
and 3 promotions you know what my pay was? $10/hr. I was lucky if I could even
afford the employee discounted food there.

So terms limits sound good but it's just not happening soon. The way we can
impose term limits without amending the constitution is to educate people,
organize them, and then make sure each of our communities bands together to
vote out all incumbents after 2 or 4 years. In order to appease everyone we
should also make sure there is a republican and democrat running for that
office during every "vote out the incumbent" year regardless of what party
currently holds the seat.

Yeah, it sounds idealistic and it is. I wouldn't try to convince anyone it
would work in reality but in theory it sounds good. Too bad reality sucks.

