Fire Congress, Vote Out Incumbents
For politicians to do what is right, first citizens must do what is right.
Of all the many, many stupid things that most Americans do, nothing is more insane than the ritual every two years of reelecting incumbent members of Congress. Countless opinion polls find that the public has incredibly low levels of positive regard for Congress. Just one in 10 Americans approves of the job Congress is doing, according to a Gallup poll released a few weeks ago, tying the branch's lowest approval rating in 38 years.
Yet this year as in past years, unless Americans take back control of their country, voters will again reelect nearly all incumbents. Often, some incumbents do not even have any significant opposition. For example, in the 2000 election cycle, out of 435 House seats, 64 members had no major-party opponent, and in 2008 every House race in Arkansas was uncontested by a major party according to the Center for Voting and Democracy. Political redesign of congressional districts, gerrymandering, is widely done to ensure reelection of incumbents or one party.
The main way that incumbents get removed from office these days is when they lose in a party primary election, or die, or get themselves into a sex or corruption scandal. Primaries often replace the incumbent with someone else from the same party who will, in time, become an incumbent. That replacement is often a more extreme partisan than the previous incumbent.
The usual rationale for this survival of incumbents given by political analysts and writers is that although the public correctly sees Congress as a whole as incompetent, dysfunctional and incapable of serving critical public interests, they somehow think that their own Representatives and Senators are worth reelecting. This, of course, makes no sense. If this had validity, then cumulatively and nationally it would make sense to keep incumbents in office and Congress would get better and better with each election. In fact, Congress has become worse and worse with each election. This holds true in a genuine bipartisan sense, as nearly all incumbents, regardless of party, do not deserve to be reelected.
If Congress as a whole stinks, which it clearly does, then it is only logical to believe that this bleak condition must result from nearly all incumbents contributing to the mess. The exceptions are not defined by simply being the ones on your ballot.
How can a democracy function and have any deserved credibility when the electorate stubbornly refuses to act honestly and appropriately to get rid of the elected representatives who have proven themselves incapable of governing with competence and honor?
There must be better explanations.
Here is a likely one. Most Americans have become beholden to one of the two major political parties even if they are not officially members of them and may even consider themselves as uncommitted or independent. Moreover, a majority of people find themselves living in places where their favored party has predominated. When election time rolls around they cannot get themselves to vote for the candidate from the “other” party and they refuse to vote for third party candidates. Or they are so fed up with an awful government and political system that they do not vote at all, or not for congressional races.
Another contributing factor might be related to the lesser evil mode of thinking. The incumbent loser that you know is, somehow, thought to be better than the competing candidate you do not know, especially one from the “other” party. Reelecting incumbents is like some form of hallucinatory fantasy deemed the safer choice as if keeping them in office will magically turn out to be different and better than in previous times. They have seen the light, gotten the message, turned the corner, become what they once promised to be, and so on. Nuts. Congressional experience is not to be rewarded; it must be penalized for rotten performance.
Third, incumbents almost always have the most money because they have already been corrupted by money. More money means more advertising and more lies. Lies work. Especially for the many information-poor voters that are easily swayed by campaign propaganda. The big popular lie of omission these days is staying completely away from their congressional record. No incumbent wants to be seen as an experienced Washington insider. If you failed on the job, why would you?
In our country effective representative government is crucial. To keep reelecting congressional incumbents that nearly always deserve to be fired is unpatriotic, subversive and antithetical to the ideals of our constitutional republic.
This year ten Senators and 42 Representatives are not running for reelection. Odds are that far fewer incumbents will be voted out of office, if historic trends continue. For House elections from 1982 to 2008 only one in three voters did not vote for a winning House representative and 73 percent of House races were won by landslide margins of at least 20 percentage points. The power of incumbency reduces much needed political competition which a healthy democracy requires.
If the royalty of incumbency does not stop there is no hope whatsoever of putting the nation on a much better track. It does not matter who is elected president. In the end, if the fractured Congress we have witnessed for years perseveres the US is doomed to join the list of once great global powers that went down the toilet.
Flush congressional incumbents out. Now. Or be complicit in the death of American democracy. Stop making excuses, rationalizing. Throw incumbent turds out of office. Even more important than not voting for the challenger or incumbent from the “other” party is not voting for the incumbent of your party, even if it threatens party control of the House or Senate.
If you do not help fire Congress, then you deserve to suffer personally from what the federal government does or does not do. Make you voice really heard this year.
CONNECT













18 comments on "Fire Congress, Vote Out Incumbents"
October 20, 2012 8:04am
Yes, vote the NOTA (None Of The Above) Party!!!
October 02, 2012 4:39am
Currently, the House of Representatives is majority Republican; the Senate majority Democratic; the President is a Democrat.
So, if we follow the insipid advice of the author, after the election we'd have a majority Democratic House; a majority Republican Senate and a Republican President.
And if you don't like what THEY do, you can always throw them out, and have a majority Republican House, majority Democratic Senate and Democratic President.
And if you don't like what THEY do...
And that solves ANYTHING exactly HOW?
It reminds me of the joke: Wanna lose 30 lbs really fast? CUT OFF YOUR HEAD.
Seems like the author has taken that joke seriously.
Please, Nation of Change, don't insult your readers with such ridiculous drivel.
October 01, 2012 8:17pm
I think Joel is presenting the "fallacy of composition". Voting for the incumbent may actually be better for me or my district (personally) because she's bringing home the defense contracts ("bacan") or something similar. It's just that if everybody does that we're collectively worse off ($750 billion in defense). (Just like in a depression, for any specific individual reducing spending is useful, but if we all reduce spending we exacerbate the depression.)
Maybe some kind of ranked voting would be better.
So i could vote for the Green candidate as my first choice, the Libertarian as the second, and the Incumbent Party (whether Democrat or Republican) as third. Then some algorithm is followed to choose the winner (for example, if there's a majority of the first candidates, then that one wins; if not, the lowest vote getter is eliminated and the votes compared again, etc).
October 01, 2012 6:26pm
It is my biased opinion and based upon MANY Public Opinion Polls that the American Citizens hold the Republicans in the House and the Sentate Responsible and Accountable for the FAILURE of Congress to act for the Country and the American citizens.
I honestly believe that the VOTERS and the Citizens are going to make a very LOUD and Clear statement this year in the General Election by voting for only Democrats and Independents and not for one Republican running for elected office at any level.
Women particularily shall make thier voices HEARD in a way that the Republicans never thought they would unite and do. THE GOP BIG MISTAKE!!!!
Maybe the women in the REPUBLICAN Party are afraid to speak out against the leaders and thier husbands. WHICH I doubt, I believe there have been Republican Husbands and Boyfriends getting Cold Meals, No clean cloths and "Cold shoulders and Hot Lips" for the past year.
October 01, 2012 3:51pm
What a stunningly stupid idea. It's the kind of thing you'd expect to hear as water-cooler conversation at the State Home for the Clueless, not from a serious political commentator.
In congress, we have a situation where "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".
When the incumbents are incompetent, and the challengers are lunatics, people understandably tend to go with incompetence. After all, being hopelessly deadlocked can actually be better than rushing headlong into disaster.
October 01, 2012 2:52pm
This argument is wrong for exactly the same reason as term limits were disastrous. It throws out the good legislators along with the bad. Term limits were a lazy voting populace's way of not doing its homework: Look at the incumbent candidates' performance and re-elect or remove them depending on their record.
Now, in statehouses everywhere, we have inexperienced representatives by force of law (including Democrats), totally outsmarted by well-paid career lobbyists who know every nook and cranny of the system and routinely write and promote the bills they want pushed—and paying the chronically lame-duck lawmaker shills' campaign bills with a cut of the obscene profits.
Instead of "throw the bums out," help educate voters to get and pay attention to facts instead of rhetoric and sound bites, and then to kick out the bad guys and guard the good ones with their votes.
October 01, 2012 1:26pm
How about having a "Confidence/no confidence" vote on each elected official before they're allowed to run in the general election? This avoids the "lesser of evils" argument and would make it easier to vote on their record, as there would be nobody else to badmouth or scare people about. Of course, we'd also have to ban any advertising about these confidence votes, so we cut down on the available turf for lying...
Maybe it's time for a parliamentary system where we just vote for the party we support, and let them make coalitions. I know that has its drawbacks, but at least the minority viewpoint SOMETIMES gets some play. I'm tired of Republicrats and tend to agree that anyone serving for more than a term or two who can't point to some meaningful successes should be asked to step aside for someone new.
Or you could use my brother's suggestion: have it be like jury duty. You're number comes up, and you're in Congress two years. I know that some questionable people would end up in Congress, but there's a lot of questionable people there now, and at least our draftees wouldn't owe anybody financial allegiance. And people tend to step up to a higher level of ethics when they're on a jury - maybe the same would happen as representatives?
In any case, the current arrangements suck. Don't know that the author has a solution, but it's true, we keep voting in the same idiots and charlatans despite their incompetence and venality. One definition of "crazy" is "repeating the same action and expecting different results." I think we qualify.
October 01, 2012 11:23am
This sounds like as bad an idea as term limits. It is the responsibility of each citizen to to follow the voting record of his/her elected officials and vote them out when they do a bad job. Keep them in when they do a good job. Simple. But it takes work on the part of the citizens. Being informed is work and it takes time. I am actually more concerned about the state of our media. Hard to stay objectively informed anymore with Fox news and other ridiculously biased media. Investigative journalism is pretty much dead. And now instead of news we get blaring music, bombshell broadcasters who'd be lost without the teleprompters, and infotainment.
October 01, 2012 12:18pm
Foggy & Mlane- thanks for your lucid comments - we get the government we deserve "The fault dear Brutus is not in the stars - or in this case the incumbents- but in ourselves. You don't like what your representative is doing, vote him/her out-
October 01, 2012 1:02pm
We hear from a genius ? pray tell us how we can vote them out when the ballot is stacked against us.
No the thing to do is put them in jail where they belong .
October 01, 2012 10:20am
This essay makes no logical argument that incumbency is the problem. In fact, it argues against it by saying correctly that the "replacement is often a more extreme partisan than the previous incumbent".
The truth is that whether an office holder is good or not, is not determined by their incumbency status. That is a terrible basis for voting someone out of office.
October 01, 2012 12:03pm
Reply to Foggy: I don't know if one could say it better. Thanks. A recent example to back you up - we recently traded Russ Feingold for Ron Johnson.
October 01, 2012 11:26am
It makes perfect sense. Take Nancy Pelosi she voted for NAFTA, Gramm/Leach/Baliey (repeal of Glass/Stegall/NDAA/and against the 2012 total Audit the Fed. Now that's a long history of anti 'we the people' legislation that she's messed with. Add to this her 'off the table' Impeachment of Bush. Definitely time for someone new in her seat.
October 01, 2012 9:56am
Vote Out of Office All Republicans, and keep a close eye on the Democrats, and we just might get this country back.
October 01, 2012 1:06pm
The only choice you have , then kick your democrat 's ass every Saturday night , to let him know you are watching him.
October 01, 2012 9:51am
house passes job bills and senator hairy will not even let them come to vote
October 01, 2012 1:07pm
The house has not passed a bill in two years that any democrat could even consider , So you think the democrats should roll over for you . You are a sick puppy just like the house.
October 01, 2012 9:26am
Unfortunately, I think this "non-partisan" approach is very highly partisan. It relies on many of the "Government - Bad, Scrapping of Everything - Good" framing that is rampant in the rhetoric these days.
There is a strong bias towards incumbents and it's not ideal. The real problem is the money. If you could stop the corrupting influence of money you would go far.
If you want 3rd parties to work maybe "Automatic Runoff Elections" where you can register your protest vote and still elect the best candidate. Someday, maybe a 3rd party candidate will have the votes to win.
In short, the GOP made a specific effort to hold America hostage to make Obama a one term president. They are the ones with their "Do nothing Congress" who is chiefly to blame for the low approval of congress. Pointing at incumbents misses the point.
If you want to hold them accountable for holding up jobs bills in order to repeal Obamacare a 33rd time then Vote Democratic! Yes, even if it means voting for an incumbent Democrat.