Below is my Sunday column yesterday in the Washington Post on reforming our political system. We are certainly, as the Chinese curse says, “living in interesting times.” We seem to be in the midst of an American revolution where citizens have arisen in collective disgust of the establishment and the status quo. For years, citizens have objected to a political system that is dysfunctional and detached. The two parties have largely ignored these objections and many have objected to this “doupoly” on power. For many, answer of the two parties to the American people seems to be the same as Henry Ford to customers of the Model T Ford: “you can have any color so long as it is black.” In the United States, you can have any party so long as it is red or blue; Republican or Democrat. Yet, in 2016, the public has responded with a deafening rejection of the establishment. The most obvious is Donald Trump who is the perfect personification of an angry electorate. On the democratic side, a 74-year-old Democratic Socialist has rocked the Democratic party, which overtly rigged a primary system to guarantee the selection of the ultimate establishment figure: Hillary Clinton. However, we seem to go this cathartic exercise every four years rather than seek some changes to break down the insularity of government. There is another way. Instead of just choosing some personality that matches our angry politics, we can really change the system . . . for the better. The Framers gave the public the power to solve our own problems, including the ability to circumvent Congress with a constitutional convention. We have the anger. The question is whether we have the answer.
Below is the column. There are a host of other changes that can be made to improve the system, including many that can be down without a constitutional amendment. However, there is a value in focusing on a few basics that could have a transformative effect on the respective branches of government.
Legal scholar says we need to change the system, not just who’s in charge
America is fuming. In Super Tuesday exit polls, as many as 95 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of Democrats said they were “angry” or “dissatisfied” with the federal government. I’ve heard the same when speaking to audiences across the country. Conservatives and liberals alike talk about their frustrations with a dysfunctional political system that is unresponsive to their needs and disconnected from their lives.
Voters say they want a revolution. But that’s going to take more than electing personalities that channel our angry politics. If we want real change, we need to look at fundamental reforms to all three branches of our government.
Executive branch
First, we need to join most of the rest of the world’s democracies in moving to direct, majority-based elections of our presidents. In a late-January Washington Post-ABC News poll, 69 percent of respondents said they were “very anxious” or “somewhat anxious” about the idea of a President Donald Trump, and 51 percent said the same about a President Hillary Clinton. Yet outside a handful of swing states, most voters don’t see themselves as having much influence on the outcome of the November election. And they’re right: It’s basically impossible for Democrats to lose deep-blue states such as California or for Republicans to lose deep-red ones such as Idaho. It doesn’t help that a president can win with less than 50 percent of the popular vote, as has happened with 15 previous presidents, or by losing the popular vote altogether, as has happened four times.
We wisely got rid of the election of senators by state legislators with the enactment of the 17th Amendment in 1913. We’re overdue to abolish the electoral college. The United States should be led by a president who can garner a simple majority of votes. And if no one reaches that threshold in the general election, we should require a runoff between the two leading candidates.
Legislative branch
Despite the best efforts of the tea party and other insurgent movements, congressional incumbents maintain a death grip on their seats. Ninety-five percent of sitting congressmen and 82 percent of senators up for reelection won in 2014. They have an enormous fundraising advantage , but even more important, they are protected by how district lines are drawn.
To give voters real choices, we need a constitutional amendment barring gerrymandering of congressional districts and requiring that districts be based solely on population numbers and geographic continuity. Then we should alter our elections to allow the top two vote-getters in the primaries to run against each other in the general election, even if they’re from the same party, from a third party or are independent. While voters in Sugar Land, Tex., still might elect Republicans and voters in Chicago still might elect Democrats, they might elect different Republicans or Democrats. Moreover, in choosing between candidates of an opposing party, voters from the minority party in that district might favor a more moderate and ultimately more representative choice.
Judicial branch
We need to finally end the absurd politics of the Supreme Court, which concentrates too much power in the hands of too few justices. With such a small court, one justice can have enormous influence on rulings. That’s why the arguments in so many cases, including the Texas abortion case heard this past week, are pitched to a single swing justice. It’s why confirmations have become so traumatic, as the deadlock over the replacement of Justice Antonin Scalia vividly shows.
A larger Supreme Court would diminish the power of individual justices and increase the chances that the best legal minds could get confirmed. I’ve advocated for the expansion of the court to 19 members. That’s about the average size of a U.S. circuit court and in line with other major democracies. (Germany’s high court has 16 members, Japan’s has 15, and Britain’s has 12.)
The current size of the U.S. Supreme Court is arbitrary, related to the number of federal circuits in the late 1800s. The Constitution leaves it to Congress to determine how many justices the court needs. So we could expand through legislation rather than constitutional amendment. I’d propose ramping up gradually, preventing any president from appointing more than two justices to the new seats. And while we’re at it, we should pass legislation that allows cameras in the Supreme Court, so citizens can watch how the justices address cases that affect their lives and monitor the justices’ competence. (Advancing incapacity due to age or illness is a recurring problem on the court.)
Americans are neither irrational nor apathetic. They’re alienated, because all the branches of the U.S. government have insulated themselves from the public to a dangerous degree. Rather than treating voters like barbarians at the gate, the government should let them in and allow them a more direct and meaningful role. Now that would be a revolution worth watching.
Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Washington Post March 6, 2016
PaulC–I didn’t say I wanted to stop the lobbying of government, I said I wanted people who serve in Congress to be banned from working for lobbyists after they leave. They are already cozy enough. Do you ever wonder how Mitch McConnell’s net worth has gone up by $24Million on a senator’s salary?
If you’re not familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli: “”the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Or the letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, in which Jefferson explicitly uses the phrase “separation of church and state” You can throw in some writings from John Locke who pretty much originated the idea of secular government, and the reinforcement of the doctrine in multiple cases over generations.
Corporate personhood has never been encoded in law, and was sneaked into a SCOTUS decision through the back door. Never explicitly decided, just assumed. There is absolutely no reason that corporations could not be sued, taxed, disbanded, dissolved, etc. without giving them personhood status. All it takes is a law. Corporations literally get away with murder in this country, and sometimes don’t even pay a fine. They break laws that would make a drug dealer ashamed, they money launder, they bribe foreign governments, (and local ones), they get the US military to support their overseas adventures. It’s time to end this cr*p. Corporations do NOT need any help from the government, they’ve been on public welfare long enough.
Okay, Olly, you’ve made your points, I’ve made mine. I enjoy reading your posts and will continue to enjoy reading them, but I don’t agree with you here. I’m done except to point out that only one of us has suggested a statist solution — that citizens must pass a government required test to vote.
Still a call for a revolution, but another side of it:
————————————–
“Just Shut Up and Vote: The Futility of Representative Government in an Age of Robber Barons
By John W. Whitehead
March 7, 2016
“That’s the way the ruling class operates in any society. They keep the lower and the middle classes fighting with each other… Anything different—that’s what they’re gonna talk about—race, religion, ethnic and national background, jobs, income, education, social status, sexuality, anything they can do to keep us fighting with each other, so that they can keep going to the bank!”—Comedian George Carlin
“We the people” have been utterly and completely betrayed.
The politicians “we the people” most trusted to look out for our best interests, protect our rights, and ensure that the nation does not slip into tyranny have cheated on us, lied to us, swindled us, deceived us, double-crossed us, and sold us to the highest bidder.
Time and again, they have shown in word and deed that their priorities lay elsewhere, that they care nothing about our plight, that they owe us no allegiance, that they are motivated by power and money rather than principle, that they are deaf to our entreaties, that they are part of an elite ruling class that views us as mere cattle, that their partisan bickering is part of an elaborate ruse to keep us divided and distracted, and that their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution mean nothing.
Incredibly, even in the face of their treachery and lies, the great majority of Americans persist in believing that the politicians have the people’s best interests at heart.
Despite the fact that we’ve been burned before, most Americans continue to allow themselves to be bamboozled into casting their votes for one candidate or another, believing that this time they mean what they say, this time they really care about the citizenry, this time will be different.
Of course, they rarely ever mean what they say, they care about their constituents only to the extent that it advances their political careers, and it never turns out differently. We are as easily discarded the day after the elections as we were wantonly wooed in the months leading up to the big day. Those same politicians who were once so eager to pose for our pictures, smile at our jokes, and glad-hand us for our votes will, upon being elected, retreat behind a massive, impenetrable wall that ensures we are not seen or heard from again—at least, until the next election.
The joke is on us.
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, all of the caucuses, primaries, nominating conventions, town hall meetings, rallies, meet and greets, delegates and super-delegates are sophisticated schemes aimed at advancing the illusion of participation culminating in the reassurance ritual of voting.
It’s not about Red Republicans or Blue Democrats. It’s about Green Donors—i.e, those with money who can afford to pay for access.
Votes might elect politicians, but as a 2014 field experiment by political scientists at Yale University and the University of California, Berkeley, makes clear, it’s money that talks.
The experiment went something like this: members of Congress were contacted by constituents requesting meetings about pending public policy issues. As the Washington Post reports, “When the attendees were revealed to be ‘local campaign donors,’ they often gained access to Members of Congress, Legislative Directors, and Chiefs of Staff. But when the attendees were described as only ‘local constituents,’ they almost never gained this level of access.”
Conclusion: money buys access to politicians who are otherwise deaf, dumb and blind to the entreaties of their constituents.
It works the same with every politician and every party.
Indeed, the First Amendment’s assurance of a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances has become predicated on how much money you’re willing to shell out in order to gain access to your elected and appointed officials.
Then again, money has always played a starring role in American politics.
The spoils system reared its greedy head under Andrew Jackson, who traded jobs in his administration in exchange for campaign contributions. For $1 million, donors could take part in Warren Harding’s poker parties and enjoy a sleepover at the White House. Lyndon Johnson had a President’s Club that cost donors $1000 a year. Nixon was prepared to sell ambassadorships for $250,000. And Bill Clinton famously allowed top-dollar donors to spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom at the White House in exchange for roughly $5.4 million in donations to the Democratic National Committee.
Fast forward to the present day, and a $500,000 donation might get you invited to a quarterly meeting with Barack Obama. For a mere $5,000 donation, lobbyists are being given exclusive invitations to join Congressmen and senators for weekend getaways that include wine tastings, fly fishing, skiing, golfing, hunting, spas, seaside cocktail parties and more.
If you’re just a lowly citizen with limited cash, however, you’re out of luck.
Try contacting your so-called representatives without paying for the privilege, and see how far that gets you. I can assure you that you won’t be given the kinds of access that lobbyists, special interest groups and top donors enjoy.
Having been saddled with a pay-to-play system that provides access only to those with enough cash to grease the wheels of the political machine, average Americans have little to no say in the workings of their government and even less access to their so-called representatives.
Donald Trump, as he has boasted, might be able to buy and sell politicians of all stripes (including Hillary Clinton), but the average American would be hard-pressed to get the kind of access enjoyed by corporate executives, lobbyists and other members of the moneyed elite.
Indeed, members of Congress have to work hard to keep their constituents at a distance—minimizing town-hall meetings, making minimal public appearances while at home in their districts, only appearing at events in controlled settings where they’re the only ones talking, and if they must interact with constituents, doing so via telephone town meetings or impromptu visits to local businesses where the chances of being accosted by angry voters are greatly minimized.
And under the Trespass Bill, passed by Congress in 2012 and signed into law by President Obama, if you dare to exercise your First Amendment right to speak freely to a politician, assemble in public near a politician, or petition a government official for a redress of grievances, you risk a fine or a lengthy stay in prison.
Talk about self-serving.
Under the guise of protecting government officials from physical attacks, the Trespass Bill, a.k.a. “the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act,” criminalizes First Amendment activity by making it a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone.
Mind you, the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone whom the president determines needs protection, but is also in charge of securing National Special Security Events, which include events such as the G8 and NATO summits, the National Conventions of both major parties, and even the Super Bowl.
The law essentially creates a roving bubble zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits, thereby putting an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present. Thus, simply walking by one of these events could make you subject to arrest.
“What that means in practice,” as The Intercept rightly points out, “is that campaign rallies for Donald Trump, who was granted Secret Service protection in November, and Hillary Clinton, who will be guarded for life as a former first lady, are the very opposite of free speech zones under federal law. (The restrictions also apply to all appearances by former presidents and first ladies, as well as those of two other candidates, Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson, who are currently protected by the service.)”
Consider yourself warned: If you do dare to show up to a Trump or Clinton rally and even appear to be the kind of person who might engage in any kind of protest, lawful or otherwise, you could find yourself quickly dispatched to a “free speech zone” out of sight and sound of the candidates. (“Free speech zones” are government-sanctioned areas located far away from government officials, into which activists and citizens are herded at political rallies and events.) In fact, that’s exactly what happened to a group of black students at a recent Trump rally in Georgia. They were escorted by police to “‘free speech zones’ in a field shielded from the venue by a set of tennis courts, or outside a church about a quarter of a mile away.”
The message is clear: in an age of robber barons, “we the people” are expected to just shut up and vote.
The powers-that-be want us to be censored, silenced, muzzled, gagged, zoned out, caged in and shut down. They want our speech and activities monitored for any sign of “extremist” activity. They want us to be estranged from each other and kept at a distance from those who are supposed to represent us. They want taxation without representation. They want a government without the consent of the governed.
They want the police state.
The system has been so corrupted and compromised that there are few left in the halls of government who hear or speak for us.
Congress does not represent us. The courts do not advocate for us. The president does not listen to us. And the First Amendment’s assurance of the right to speak freely and petition our government for a redress of grievance no longer applies to us.
So if representative government has become an exercise in futility, where does that leave us?
One of the key ingredients in maintaining democratic government is the right of citizens to freely speak their minds to those who represent them. In fact, it is one of the few effective tools we have left to combat government corruption and demand accountability.
If there is to be any hope of righting the wrongs that are being perpetrated against the American people, we must make them—our elected officials—hear us.
But where to begin?
Start by opening up a dialogue within your own community about what’s wrong with this country. Stop focusing on the issues that divide, and find common ground with your fellow citizens about issues on which you can agree. Focus less on politics and more on principles. Stop buying into the false and divisive narratives that are being promulgated by political windbags and start thinking and speaking for yourselves.
Once you’ve found that common ground, whatever it might be, make enough noise at the local level—at your city council meetings, in your local paper, at your school board meetings, in front of your courthouses and police stations—and the message will trickle up. Those in power may not like what they hear, but they will hear you.
Remember, there is power in numbers.
There are 319 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice?
The police state wouldn’t stand a chance.
WC: 1853
This commentary is also
available at http://www.rutherford.org.
All excellent ideas professor.
1. I would add that we need to reverse Citizens United and get control over money in politics. Money is NOT speech.
2. We also need to unwind the bad habit that considers corporations to be persons. Another perverse notion that has brought us nothing but trouble.
3. We need to send politicians home after they serve their terms in Congress. No more lobbying. Period. Go home. Work on the farm.
4. We need to build a moat around the wall of separation of church and state. Get religion out of government once and for all, and if churches/temples/synagogues want to stay involved, let them start paying taxes.
After that, we can sort out the rest.
Great article. Thank you.
phillyT – you want to stop the lobbying of government? You mean that no citizen will be allowed to lobby their representative? Really? Businesses have the same right (since they are being taxed) as a voting citizen to lobby their government.
Please quote the clause in the Constitution that says their will be a separation of church and state.
Corporations are persons for the purposes of being sued and paying taxes. If you take those away they don’t pay taxes and you cannot sue them. And it is not a bad habit that considers them as such.
Shadow,
You are the statist dream. “My point is simple: the informed electorate you desire is a pipe dream.” For this representative system to work the people NEED to make it a priority to know how it is supposed to work and then elect people for that purpose. If they don’t care enough to know the basics (and that information is available to everyone), then their own ignorance and their own apathy that would disqualify them to vote. If an immigrant that wants to vote in our system cannot pass the citizenship test they don’t get to vote. They are merely residents in this country. They pay taxes, they use our public infrastructure but they don’t have a say in our system of government until they prove they qualify for the franchise. This should be no different a qualification for citizens. If you don’t know what you are doing then you should be excluded until you do. All the other layers you want to add on are your words, not mine.
“A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody. The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree. If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.” Frederic Bastiat
I wonder if we disposed of the practice of primary elections there actually would be more choice presented to the voters. Perhaps even more worrisome, to the establishment, would be that third parties could actually participate in general elections.
There you go, Paul. At least you know what you are looking for.
Actually the best we can do is be informed about the candidates — their current and historical positions — and compare them to our beliefs, values, and needs. Then make a decision. That’s achievable.
“I have an idea, since we already restrict the franchise to qualified citizens, and the states have the authority to define those qualifications, then require at a minimum, EVERY citizen to pass the civics test new citizens are required to take. NO EXCUSES!”
So only those expert enough to pass the test can vote? LOL!!! Someone IS throwing away the franchise. Why not bring back property ownership as the criteria?
Sure, I can understand the desire for a test, a simple elegant solution, right? Not. A test is a good way to get all those average folk back to tending to their own affairs while we experts run the show. No? Democracy is ugly, as it has to be — just like freedom of speech is. But you don’t get to choose who is knowledgeable enough to vote any more than you get to choose which speech is acceptable speech. Other versions of the test would include only male citizens getting to vote or only those who served in the military or, again, only property owners. And as to creating a bureaucratic state, you think you can run a country this size without one?
My point is simple: the informed electorate you desire is a pipe dream. It’s not that the average person is less intelligent than the expert. It’s that the average person doesn’t have the time to tend to his 40+ hour a week job, and her family, and be sufficiently knowledgeable about all the issues. Ther isn’t enough time in the day. Gone are the good old agricultural days when the knowledge and values you learned as a kid and served you for a lifetime. Now the knowledge you need to remain relevant grows almost ever day, and the values that served your parents for a lifetime change once or twice over a lifetime. The age of specialization has long been upon us and things change at an ever increasing rate. Thus the birth of the expert and the bureaucracy. It’s as true in government as it is in private industry.
This reminds me of Plato. You wouldn’t think you could build a ship as well as a shipbuilder or make a shoe as well as s shoemaker. But when it comes to politics, everyone thinks he’s sufficiently informed.
Shadow – I think that I am sufficiently informed to vote for Mickey Mouse if a better candidate does not present itself. 😉 Mickey is my Gold Standard. If you are not as good as or better than Mickey, I cannot vote for you.
Shadow wrote: “Why not bring back property ownership as the criteria?”
Yes we should bring back property ownership as a criteria for voting.
What I see needed is a weighted voting system. Those who own property are more invested in the community, pay more taxes, and by virtue of ownership are successful. Therefore, property ownership should add more weight to that person’s vote.
Education should as well, as reflected in passing a civil service or citizenship exam.
So, for example:
Every adult citizen gets 1 vote. A property owner would bump that up by 1. Those who elect to take a citizen / government competency test and pass it get their vote bumped up by 1 more. Those who have a bank account get their vote bumped up by 1 more, because that indicates they can handle money. Those who are on government assistance get their vote downgraded by 1 because there is a conflict of interest for them to vote for more assistance for themselves. They can offset that by choosing to take a citizen / government competency test. Many different criteria could be devised to create a weighted voting system that would stop the two party gridlock system that happens now when everyone gets to vote.
To vote, run for office, or work for the government you must first become first class citizen
volunteer for specified time in public service without guarantee of position either civilian or military assignment.
Only those who served in the military can attain positions that may vote for or become leaders in a war.
reason:
individual choice to put society ahead of self
soldiers are less likely to vote for war
civilians are not qualified to conduct nor lead troops in war
it’s not about race, sex, or money it’s about proven ability
@ Olly – Thank you.
CWD,
What is your definition for universal and equal suffrage?
@CWD
Maybe it’s taking the vote from welfare moms, because the Democrats have turned that into a scheme to buy votes? We can’t afford all the crap now, and have to indebt kids and grand-kids and great grand-kids (not mine, because I ain’t never having any!) of the current generation to pay some welfare ho to pop out 5 or 6 illegitimate kids, when she can’t take care of the one she already had.
Which I would be all for!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@Robert
Right on! Our decline has already started, and we probably can’t stop it. We sure can’t when the Barbarians own the media and Hollywood. Our only hope is that whatever people will replace us take pity on us. Or, decline faster than us.
Toynbee Rules!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
David
Would you let us know what you mean by: ‘ get rid of the concept of universal and equal suffrage’.
Thanks
CW
Very good post JR!
I admire Professor Turley’s fidelity to the Constitution and even many of his conclusions on policy. I believe he has diagnosed the symptoms correctly but has the solution completely backward in this case. Democracy at the extreme inevitably produces policies that allocate wealth and opportunity through political rather than market processes, making societies both less fair and less prosperous.
People must offer others things that others want in order to satisfy their own self-interest (Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”) in free markets. People who steal risk prison. People have another option in the highly regulated welfare/warfare state we have today – use government’s police power to get what they want. Self-interest is a fact of life inherent in our human nature. Markets tend to channel self-interest toward positive ends, however imperfectly.
The American founders believed that the political process tends to channel self-interest and even our better altruistic impulses, though imperfectly, into destructive ends. (See, for example, Madison’s analysis of factions in Federalist 10.) Therefore, they designed a series of blocking mechanisms into our governmental structure to prevent majorities from denying minorities their natural rights: the electoral college to elect presidents; a bicameral legislature with one house elected by the state legislatures, and checks and balances consisting three branches of the federal government with limited enumerated powers check by retaining most of the powers that affect everyday life in the state governments.
There are many able advocates of the opposing view – that the founders were wrong about the defects of human nature, and wrong to create so many checks on democracy. Apparently, Professor Turley is one. I side with the founders and believe much of the current dysfunction in government results from 20th century reforms which made the US more democratic. Human nature has not changed much in the last two and a half centuries.
Government should return to its constitutionally mandated federalist structure. The US would produce stronger economic growth along with more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity. An excellent first step would be repeal of the 17th amendment along with strengthening the 9th and 10th amendments.
Looking in the rearview mirror. Quick study: Fall of the Roman Empire
So, the main points for the fall were
1. bad emperors
2. increasing civilization of the people of the empire (which means weaker soldiers)
3. Roman disunity, endless infighting
4. economic decline
5. plagues
6. mass migration
7. and the settlement of the Visigoths in Moesia
History seems to be repeating itself
BeeEss on changing the electoral college. Flyover country is already overly dominated by the highly populated East and West Coast, and if you dump the electoral college, we only encourage MACHINE POLITICS.
And ask yourself exactly how well these big cities, with their Democratic Party machine in place doing? THEY SUCK! and people have to move to the suburbs to have any kind of decent life.
What is the world do you have to smoke to think that extending this to the rest of the country is a good idea??? I don’t know, but it ought to be illegal.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“Percentages without numbers are meaningless at the least and often misleading at worst.”
The number you were missing is the number assumed you would have already known, 100.
“This is not the late 18th century. The country is complicated, and the federal government is involved in so many more things than it was 100 years ago, never mind 200 years ago.”
And that is how the bureaucratic state is born. You average folk need to tend to your own affairs and let us “experts” handle the really complicated stuff. Horseshi$!
You have just advocated for getting rid of the franchise because citizens have no possible way of knowing what in the hell they are voting about. The other option is to do what we are doing and that is to give more people that have no idea what they are doing the power to vote for people and issues they know nothing about. Asinine!!! Which is exactly WHY “”the federal government is involved in so many more things than it was 100 years ago”!
I have an idea, since we already restrict the franchise to qualified citizens, and the states have the authority to define those qualifications, then require at a minimum, EVERY citizen to pass the civics test new citizens are required to take. NO EXCUSES!
Then..”…in 2014, 95% of sitting Congressmen and 82% of the 33 eligible Senators won their reelections.”
Otherwise one may ask does “sitting” modify just Congressmen or both Congressmen and Senators.
Also, does “up for reelection” mean this year’s election or in the 2014 election? Clarity is achieved with an edit which repositions “in 2014.”
Now the actual percent of Senators ( or number running ) is obviously rounded.
The nit being picked here has to do with the use of percentages which, on the surface, is not clear unless one knows the 2 & 6 yr terms provisions. Percentages without numbers are meaningless at the least and often misleading at worst.
Renegade – if we are going to pick some nits, some of the 33 retired and were not eligible for re-election.