There
are 535 members of the United States Congress emanating from 435
districts and 50 states across the country. The legislative branch is
generally known as the most “democratic” branch in our constitutional
system due to each member representing their constituents in terms of
interests, values, and decision-making. Yet, according to David Mayhew,
one of the leading congressional scholars of the last half century,
the members of congress act with one goal in mind: that of reelection.
Furthermore, he argues that congressional staff, committees, and
political parties play a role in this. This single-minded goal is
debatable and will require more discussion in class. But if we assume it
is true for now, is it a bad thing that members of congress are motivated by
the desire to be reelected? Does this constant pursuit of reelection
have a positive or negative impact on representation? How might this affect whether congress can get anything done? Feel
free to
expand this discussion to representation in general.
2/25 edit: In the discussion of congress one truly unique aspect of the American Senate is the filibuster. However how it is used by various Senators and parties has evolved a lot. You can listen to the podcast below for a really interesting perspective on what it is today and what might happen to the filibuster in the future: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/11/166993494/episode-422-schoolhouse-rock-is-a-lie-or-how-the-filibuster-ate-washington
After listening, if you would like to comment on the use of the filibuster in your blog, feel free.
I think that this pursuit of reelection is good for representation because it makes the members of congress act how their constituents want in order to get their vote. This gives the people a lot of power over their representatives; which is not necessarily a good thing because it can make representatives support legislation that is not in the best interest of the country. This drive for reelection also can give a disproportionate amount of influence to the rich and people who have more education. This is because they are more likely and have a better ability to make their voice heard than poor and uneducated. I believe the pursuit of reelection can hinder congresses ability to get things done because it limits a representative’s ability to compromise. If a representative compromises on an issue important to his or her constituents, an opponent will use it as example of that representative not working in the best interest of the people. This could lead to representatives not wanting to compromise for fear of not being reelected and this lack of compromise creates deadlocks in congress where nothing gets done.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that having the goal of reelection in mind is a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it pushes representatives to want to better represent the people because they know that their job is at stake. In addition, representatives know that the choices that they make may be criticized or used against them by an opposing candidate, so it is in their best interest to anticipate the policy views of their constituents anyway. Therefore this constant pursuit of reelection has a positive impact on representation because Congress members have the incentive to provide good representation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David that representatives may not want to compromise for fear of not being reelected and that this could create a deadlock in Congress. And because of the many interests represented by the 535 members of Congress I would expect it to be difficult for Congress to get things done. However, this is why the importance and duties of the President have increased over the past few decades, because the President provides leadership on important issues and helps set an agenda for Congress.
Ideally I would want our representation to be more sociological than agency based. Sociological representation takes place when representatives have the same racial, ethnic, or educational backgrounds as the people they represent and I think this helps promote the best representation and unique perspectives. I strongly agree that the composition of Congress should mirror the composition of our society in order for every group to be truly represented. On the other hand, agency representation is more of a guessing game in which representatives try to address the right issues that concern the people in order to get reelected.
Erik Martinez
I think sociological representation, as Erik describes above, is a fantastic way to bring back the focus of our government that is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people". It is disappointingly homogenized and the credentials, educational background, and need for well-to-do connections puts a bit of a stranglehold on non-white, non-male representatives.
DeleteAs many others have stated, reelection should be an important motivator for representatives, and it also means that these people need to be listening to and acting upon the interests expressed by the public.
Yes, filibusters prevent discussions, and Congress does seem to spend a lot of time bickering across party lines rather than (tangibly) accomplishing anything, but we need to put our voices out there, too.
If we, the greater public, open more lines of communication and discussion between the people and their representatives, we can probably get more things accomplished, as well as better gauge which representatives are in fact representing us.
It's hard to represent people if they only tell you what they want on election day.
To be honest, I dont know how I feel about the goals of congress and if they perpetuate the system of disagreement and essentially not accomplish as much as they should or could. After reading Erik and David's responses I can agree that the goal of reelection isn't as negative as I originally thought. It gives the representatives the push and drive to be what the people need and want them to be. On the other hand though, I wonder if reelection was not an option, would the main goal of congress be to change policies and get things done in the time period they have as representatives? Would it give them an end date/goal, so they would accomplish more, instead of thinking of dealing with the issues next term? I see that in congress, because of the conflicting ideals and political views, many things take a long time to pass or not pass; if reelection wasn't an option I think some of the representatives would vote and handle issues differently, maybe even more honestly because they have nothing to lose.
ReplyDeleteI do not know much about the goals of Congress. But I think that I can agree that having a goal of re-election is not all bad. A goal of re-election could push congressmen and congresswomen to act and push in favor of what their people want. It could potentially be a positive goal. I do see the other side though. I was questioning along the same lines as Kelly. If there was a term limit for Congress, would Congress be more capable of accomplishing more? I believe that if re-election was not consistently on a person's mind, then more could get done in Congress. I believe that Congress would handle their issues better and more efficiently. Though, I do think that the filibuster is essentially a "veto" in the NPR show. The filibuster allows a person to just stall in the Senate. It can stop the Senate from moving forward to accepting bills. Filibustering gives people in the Senate immense power to stall bills and such.
DeleteI agree with you Kelly with the re-election cutoff, we have a lot of career politicians whose goal is to rise in social circles instead of leading the charge on change and reform. Jesse Jackson Jr i think is an example of a career representative from the 2nd congressional district of Illinois that has taken advantage of his power. He of course could be seen as the epitome of a bad representative stealing hundreds of thousands from his campaign fund and breaking a plea deal. All this while being absent from his seat at the House of representatives. Jackson duped his constituents I'm sure he isn't the first and wont be the last but if we limited the time representatives could stay in office it would at least limit the disturbance they cause in democracy. Jackson's seat will stay vacant till a special election is conducted and could cost the state up to 5.1million dollars add that on top of what he has already cost Illinois tax payers.
DeleteToday we discussed in class that only a 16 percent of the American population is content with the congress, and that is significantly low. I think many of the times congressmen and women get so caught up in getting re elected and they focus less on actually getting things done. I think it affects the congress in a negative way because if we have a bad congress, and we keep re electing the same people, our congress is never going to process. I agree with Kelly, if re election was no an option congress men and women would know they only have a limited amount of time to get things done. I think a lot of people who are part of the congress know for the most part that they will get re elected so they try to delay things and do not always meet the dead line. A lot of the time congress does not meet a certain decline and they have to come up with a last minute plan that affects the entire nation. I feel the congress is not a clear representation of our nation and the fact that their terms are unlimited negatively affect our society.
ReplyDeleteI do not see reelection as a bad thing, I think it is a positive thing. If a Congress member is reelected, that means people agree what he is doing in Congress is beneficial. I do think that if Congress did not focus on reelection maybe they would focus on current issues. However, todays Congress is not doing much. Members cannot agree on almost anything and it is hurting the United States. Without Congress passing any laws, nothing beneficial can come. I feel that members of the Democratic party and the Republican party are sticking to their parties, and not working as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAfter class discussion today on filibusters, I now know why things have gone slowly in Congress. In todays Congress, we need to limit these actions. Nothing can be done, if people cannot agree or discuss. We need all the time allowed to get things accomplished in our legislative branch.
I agree with Caroline and think reelection can be positive. If someone is doing something right that our country is benefiting from, then they should continue to hold that position for as many terms as possible so that they can continue to work on the issues at hand. Heck, isn’t that why we reelected Obama? Granted not everyone agrees he’s the best thing for our country, but enough believed that he was making a difference and a change in our country to give him another term. Today in class, an interesting point was brought up. As soon as someone in congress is elected, the winning party immediately starts thinking on how to get reelected while the losing party begins campaigning with a new face and creates new strategies for the next election. It too made me feel like the issues never get fully resolved or get worked on up to a certain extent before the focus changes gears and turns to reelection. I personally feel like that’s how it always has been and will be. Issues come up, will get worked on for half a term and then rolls over to the next person in charge or even the same person for that matter. I think maybe (and obviously I have no idea, not being in congress myself) too many congressmen and politicians for that matter believe they will continue to get reelected, that the pattern will always stay the same. I think they rely on all of that time to be used for resolving issues and before they know it, their time is up and whoops, the next person gets to pick up where I left off and make a new mess out of the situation. If reelection were to never exist, I can’t help but think that our country may have made better progress. Then, a set of rules, laws, and guidelines would have at least been a bit more accomplished and thought out. Obviously we’re never going to get people to agree on something, whether they both come from the same party or not. However, leaving ideas half developed, half carried out, and half executed creates a much larger issue by the time it gets into someone else’s hands. If we’re in extreme debt with one president and set of congress, and then that same debt, rolls over with a new president and congress, that’s just more fuel to the fire. The new commander and congress will be spending more time on adjusting the previous leader’s ideas rather than fully focusing all of their power onto that issue and trying to end it. It’s just a snowball effect and it gets nowhere. I mean, look at where we are now.
ReplyDeleteIf reelection is the only motivating force for congressional members, I think it causes inflexibility when it comes to making decisions that affect the entire country. I think it's perfectly normal for viewpoints to change, especially under certain circumstances. But when congressional members feel obligated to stick to one view point, or that of their constituents, they are less likely to vote for what they truly believe at that moment.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, as a voter, I'd be happy that my representative is fulfilling his duties in being MY voice in government. I would be disappointed, however, if making me (and others) happy meant completely throwing out common sense. A member of congress is more than just my representative; he or she is also a human capable of feeling emotions, having their own thoughts that I think are similar to mine, and carrying out decisions that I would do if I were in their posiion. I understand that not everyone sees things the way I do, but as a voter, I would pick the BEST representation of my voice in office. If the particular politician made decisions that were not necessarily things I would do, I'd keep in mind that being the best candidate for the job does not always equate to being perfect.
I don't think reelection is a bad idea. If the people like what those members are doing then they should be able to get reelected. I feel like since these members do get reelected their is more chance of things getting done. If members kept switching then their would always be new ideas, and people trying to learn to agree with each other and learn about each other, but with reelection then people can learn about each others opinions and work together to get to a certain goal. I think the parties have to drop this fight between parties and try to get things done. At the end of the day we are one nation, and the main goal is to do whats best for the country. The democratic or republic shouldn't have such a big impact on making choices.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the insight that if individuals like the congress members actions while in office they should be re elected and perhaps a postive relationship can yield to getting things done more.
Deletei think that it is a good and bad thing for members of congress to be motivated by reelection. On the one hand, members of congress will be listening to what people want to get done. They know that if they cant do what the people want, then they wont be reelected. For this reason and in some cases this reason alone, they will keep their ear to the ground and work to push for policy that pleases their voters. On the other hand, if members of congress are motivated only by the strive to be reelected, they may go back on some of their more firm beliefs and ideals in order to get the support they need for reelection. Most senators or members of office have some higher morals that they believe in when they take office, if they are working to be reelected, they may be willing to forget some of those morals for another term. Because of this, there are good and bad effects on members of congress working for reelection.
ReplyDeleteMembers of congress that are motivated by the desire to be reelected is a good thing but to a certain extent, after that, it turns sour. Representatives that are really in it for the interests of the people should be very concerned with holding her/his seat but should not be in control/possession of that seat.
ReplyDeleteAnd so the constant pursuit of reelection can have a negative impact on representation because times change, as do people. By the time a bill is taken into consideration, there may have been a shift of attitudes & attention/interests and perhaps values.
Congres can never get anything done because a life-long representative opposes everything, or a hipster representative is trying to pass a bill that is too radical for the still somewhat conservative congress that have been in office for decades-at least that's how it plays out in my mind.
To determine whether it is either good or bad that members of congress are motivated by the desire to be reelected, I think we have to look at why they want to hold a political position of power. In my mind, it's one of two things - either they genuinely care for the direction that our country is headed, in which case it's good; or they're more concerned with their personal reputation, legacy in the US, and how much power they can achieve, in which it isn't so positive.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of representation, the people will always vote for who they believe represents them best. "They believe" doesn't always mean they'd be correct in their selection. Once again, it depends on the congressman or woman's true motifs.
The pursuit of reelection can go both ways when it comes to getting things done. Either the ideological pendulum is swinging in favor of a member of congress's way, and they'll be able to get multiple things done, or they find themselves on the opposite side of the scale and they want to prevent things from passing.
I think that wanting to be reelected should be one of your main goals in Congress. In order for that person in Congress to get reelected, they must be making decisions in their term that possitively affects those that vote for him/her. I don't blame them for wanting to get reelected. If you knew you were able to spend the rest of your life at a job of which you enjoyed, why wouldn't you try to stay as long as possible? I understand that Congressmen make questionable decisions sometimes, but they have to make choices based on what the people want and how to protect their reputation.
ReplyDeleteI see a member of Congress hoping to be reelected as a positive thing. Hope of reelection might be what motivates members to assist the people in a greater manner. I think it is realistic to say that no matter what one does in life, there is some type of goal attached to it. Representatives want to be reelected; therefore, they are going to do everything in their power to keep their position. Listening to the concerns of the public and trying to find a way to appease them would- in my opinion, be the best way to secure reelection. A Congressman hoping for reelection is then, not only beneficial to that person, but to the public as well.
ReplyDelete-Caitlin
I think the idea that members of Congress are only striving to win reelection can be seen as both positive in some aspects and negative in others. Like a lot of people have said, if your goal is ultimately to get reelected, that means you have to appeal to people who are going to be voting for you and make decisions based on their best interests. Making decisions that don't benefit those people wouldn't compel those people to vote for you to stay in office. It can be negative though as well because as soon as they're elected, they start focusing on getting elected again and put all of their efforts towards that, as opposed to doing their jobs and making progress.
ReplyDeleteFor someone who is in congress i think it is a good thing for them to think of reelection. Like a lot of people have said, if the representatives want to get reelected most of them are going to strive to exceed what they did in their last term, trying to better their reputation. If the people like what the representative has been doing and has great ideas, the people will show their appreciation by reelection him/her because they like the way they go about things. No in a way reelection can also be a bad thing only because it is not a simple task. You pretty much are there to speak for the WHOLE district they are supporting. The representative must speak for every single person, sometimes this can be difficult because not everyone thinks the same. So when the representative does not look to the peoples ideas and concerns, they are automatically viewed in a negative way. Like our We The People book states in chapter 9, "members of congress must consider these diverse views and demands as they represent their districts".
ReplyDeleteI think it's a double edged sword. On one hand, the shortness of the terms make legislators stick to their principles (at least in their rhetoric). Sometimes they can get away with being disconnected, but not often. Polls show that most Americans like their representatives but despise Congress as a whole. Also, the shortness of the terms causes politicians to spend a lot of time raising money for upcoming campaigns, which diverts their focus from the constituents to the lobbyists and backroom deals.
ReplyDeleteI think this all relates to term limits. Members of Congress should not be career politicians. With term limits in place, Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves. They will have to live under the laws they have created while in office. Members will also have less time available to chain themselves to lobbyists, therefore reducing corruption. Term limits would help stop gridlock because re-election would not be the primary goal.
I definitely agree with the majority opinion that reelection is not necessarily negative. House members serve a two-year term, which realistically is very little time to make an impact. I don’t exactly believe that reelection should be a primary goal, as Americans look to their representatives as their voice within government, however, without reelection this voice is easily diminished. With this being said, I do agree with Christopher’s idea that term limits should be implemented to prevent individuals from making a career out of what is meant to be two years of service. Also, we as Americans could take these elections a tad more seriously since the majority of us believe that Congress hardly accomplishes anything. If we’ve seen this pattern arise time and time again without it being rectified, we do have the ability to elect a new official. It never hurts to get some new faces in Congress and some new ideas circulating. It may even lift the current stigma Americans have placed on Congress.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely agree with my classmates on the two-sided problem with this question. Congressman should have reelection in mind, but it must be for the right reasons and hopefully they would get there by doing their jobs professionally, listening to their districts, and fighting to get the changes done that their district wants. But re-election just for the power of the position or by blindly doing whatever the district commands are both going to lead to an ineffective member of Congress that isn't there for the right reasons.
ReplyDeleteI also think that with the way that things are in Congress right now, there is so much political party bickering that any one member in Congress isn't being effective for their district, but just participating in what their party is involved in. This is also super dangerous to me. If a representative is not representing their district specifically, not just the party, than to me they're not doing their job.
Also, to be fair, I think that the public does not consider who they are voting in for Congress positions as much as we should, it takes a major back seat to elections for Governor or President. Maybe if we held them more accountable, a Congressperson thinking only of re-election would have to use the professional route because they would be working to really keep the support of their district.
I think reelection can be both positive and negative. On a positive side being reelected ensures that the Congressman/woman knows how to do their job and what is expected of them. Also, an incumbent can talk to the people from their state better and can talk to a wider audience. Since terms are unlimited, running for reelection can become a custom. As a custom, the job might not be done as well as if there was a new Congress member. Reelection I think can mean that they enjoy what they are doing and would like to continue. I hope that our 535 members of Congress can do their job well without letting the idea of a constant reelection being the main focus.
ReplyDeleteI believe that being reelected has both its pros and cons, but I do not think that that should be the only thing in mind of the members of Congress. People are elected so that they can make a change in their district, and because people believe they will listen to what they have to say. Reelection should be the last thing in mind. I know it is something important, but I believe that the people should be the main priority. If David Mayhew is correct, then that is sad. That is why only 16-17% of the people feel that Congress is doing the things right.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is a good and bad perspective for members of congress to be motivated by the desire to be re elected. It could be bad a thing because state or districts might have opposing views on issues or changes wanted to be made which could cause little to no results on certain issues. Also, it could be a bad thing because I think congress should focus on helping Americans citizens as a whole and handling similar, important present issues in society rather than single and only their state or district issues. By members of congress wanting support from their electors to win another term I believe that unity could be affected negatively due to the members own individual desires to accomplish in their state if the views of issues are opposing. However, it could be a good thing if many view certain issues in the same aspect because it would be more effective in congress to get done. Also, it could be a good thing because members of congress might focus on some of the prominent issues to support their district and bring them into discussion in congress.
ReplyDeleteThe filibuster is an interesting technique used in congress. By the objective of one person in senate not agreeing with issues being discussed and deciding to filibuster gives a lot of power to one person. From my understanding they are supporting their state ideas and desires in government and if the issue is not on side of their state views they argue it down. I never knew such a tactic existed because it does not seem unifying. I believe it could be a good thing because it could stop a negative issue being put into the American system to weaken it. However, it could be a bad thing because it could hamper the attempt to fufill positive aspects of American society.
I believe that it can be both, good and bad. On the one hand if they make decisions to get reelected it can help to actually fulfil the voters' wishes. Because, if the voters voted for something that the candidate stood for and now he does not fulfil it, the voter is not going to reelect this person. In addition they would probably focus more on prominent issues to win voters for their campagne.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand I do not think that it is a good idea just to make decisions based on getting re elected. If they focus too much on the future and what could happen years later, they do not confront themselves with the present and the present issues that have to be solved. I also think that if they want to be re elected, they just focus on their parties' opininon instead of the actual opinion they stand for.
I believe it can become an issue that members of congress are motivated with their decisions and actions by the desire to be reelected. Members of congress may allow their decisions and votes be swayed away from their personal beliefs to ones that will help them be reelected. This constant "game" of chasing after a reelection can have a negative impact on representation because the member may not be doing what in the best interest of the country or what they think is in the best interest of the country but what will get them reelected. This can cause congress to not get much done because people aren't willing to compromise for what won't be a positive reelection. When congress can't compromise nothing goes anywhere nothing can get passed. The way congress is acting right now is a great example, they aren't able to get anywhere or do anything productive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julian and Carolin, there is good that comes to the voters when members of congress act upon their wishes. Why not be an advocate for the people that voted for you in the first place? The fact that Congress thinks about their future of reelection is not surprising, congress members want to keep their job and so if it takes advocating for voters who want a certain decision made, whether just or unjust, then they'll do it. At the same time, when congress acts only upon what their voters want, they may promote wrongful decisions that they know are unjust. It seems that as a congressman, they must throw their own opinion out of the window because they are the speakers for the people. If they want to continue their place in congress, they must continue their advocacy for their voters.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think that them having reelection in mind is a bad thing. It is human nature to want to win when it comes to competition, and that's what an election is. When to people are competing for the same thing, almost anything would be done to be the title-holder. Therefore, with that want, and that deep need to be the best, the congress men and woman are forced to evaluate what it is that the people they're representing really want. From there, they have to come up with detailed plans on how to meet those goals, along with making sure that their plan of making it happen is better than their opponent. "Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer but is the incentive to progress." -Herbert Hoover, State of the Union Address.
ReplyDeleteThe use of the filibuster is a very strong tool that can grind production in the Senate to a frustratingly slow pace. I personally do not believe that this is the way that our founding fathers wanted their government to run. It becomes increasingly difficult to get things passed and, as some would say, stunts the growth of our nation and stops a lot of progress.
ReplyDelete