Don't tell anyone, but members of both parties agree on fixing Congress and have even been working on it

[spectratg]

I hope that @Matrix allows this thread IF we don't disparage either party but instead focus on NON-POLITICAL areas of agreement. Members of both parties even have some of the same ideas about how to do this — and finding consensus took years and happened away from the spotlight. Republicans and Democrats alternated in every seat, rather than sitting on opposite sides of the room, as is normally the case in hearing rooms. The committee members also sat in a roundtable format, all on the same level, rather than on a multilevel dais, so that everyone could look each other in the eye, according to Yahoo News. However, no certainty that the committee will be started up again in the new Congress.

 

[Disgustedman]

I hope that @Matrix allows this thread IF we don't disparage either party but instead focus on NON-POLITICAL areas of agreement. Members of both parties even have some of the same ideas about how to do this — and finding consensus took years and happened away from the spotlight. Republicans and Democrats alternated in every seat, rather than sitting on opposite sides of the room, as is normally the case in hearing rooms. The committee members also sat in a roundtable format, all on the same level, rather than on a multilevel dais, so that everyone could look each other in the eye, according to Yahoo News. However, no certainty that the committee will be started up again in the new Congress.

It would be nice for term limits. But that's going to be a tough push by either side.

 

[MikeyDude]

Oh - you mean like the $35,000 a year pay raise they all just voted themselves? They claim that they haven't had a raise in a long time, so they deserve it.

 

[ohioboy]

Oh - you mean like the $35,000 a year pay raise they all just voted themselves? They claim that they haven't had a raise in a long time, so they deserve it.

It was not a raise in Salary, but an Expense allowance to cover costs of living in D.C. in effect though, it was.

 

[Don M.]

It is rare to find a politician who tries to serve the needs of the people, instead of the wishes of their biggest campaign contributors....either Party.

 

[Gaer]

The alternating seats is an interesting idea
It would take away the "gang mentality"..
Probably never happen though.

We are quickly losing faith in our elected officials,
and in the varied branches of the government.

 

[Nemo2]

It was not a raise in Salary, but an Expense allowance to cover costs of living in D.C. in effect though, it was.

"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" - Gertrude Stein

 

[perChance]

The alternating seats is an interesting idea
It would take away the "gang mentality"..
Probably never happen though.

We are quickly losing faith in our elected officials,
and in the varied branches of the government.

I have already lost faith in most of the ones in Canada.

 

[MikeyDude]

It was not a raise in Salary, but an Expense allowance to cover costs of living in D.C. in effect though, it was.

Yeahsure...

"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" - Gertrude Stein

What Nemo said.

 

[CarolfromTX]

Not holding my breath waiting for change.

 

[fuzzybuddy]

100 Senators and 435 Representatives , all singing "Kumbaya"? That's like winning the lottery everyday for the rest of your life-and has the same odds of happening.

 

[Alligatorob]

It would be nice for term limits. But that's going to be a tough push by either side.

I tend to like that idea, but wonder if it would give even more power to special interests. Easier to influence new members of congress? Still might be worth a try. Maybe just have a lottery to select them, drawn from all registered voters.

I agree however that it would not likely pass. People voting for something that would do away with their jobs... unlikely.

 

[perChance]

I think limiting campaign donations might help - too many groups/individuals buy influence.

 

[SeniorBen]

I think limiting campaign donations might help - too many groups/individuals buy influence.

Yep, there's too much damn money involved in getting elected and staying in office, which means undue influence by big money donors. Politicians no longer represent the will of the people; they represent the rich and corporate interests because they're the ones who fund their coffers. Get big money out of politics and everything else will fall into place.

 

[Alligatorob]

Maybe just have a lottery to select them, drawn from all registered voters.

More I thought about this it felt like a good idea. In a relatively large representative body it would result in a reasonable representation of the public. The nutballs, extremists, and fools would be outnumbered and should do little harm.

Turns out it is not a new idea, and has been done historically. We still use a version of it to select juries. It's called Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition to quote Wikipedia:

In governance, sortition (also known as selection by lottery, selection by lot, allotment, demarchy, stochocracy, aleatoric democracy, democratic lottery, and lottocracy) is the selection of political officials as a random sample from a larger pool of candidates. The system intends to ensure that all competent and interested parties have an equal chance of holding public office. It also minimizes factionalism, since there would be no point making promises to win over key constituencies if one was to be chosen by lot, while elections, by contrast, foster it. In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials, and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.

Perhaps we need a Sortition movement!