Originally Posted By ecdc Bill Maher pointed out something on his show I thought I'd ask the WE folks about. I genuinely don't think it's a partisan issue, so I'm not trying to point fingers at one party or another. Maher pointed out what most of us already know, that traditionally, Congress' poll numbers are lower than the President's, and that's the case right now. Only some 32% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing. The numbers have always been low, regardless of which party is in power. But when election time comes, we overwhelmingly re-elect the same people. The number Maher used (and he didn't provide a source) was 99%. That seems high to me, but most of the people we elect are incumbents. My question: Why is that? If Americans are so dissatisfied with their elected leaders, why do they keep voting for them?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<My question: Why is that? If Americans are so dissatisfied with their elected leaders, why do they keep voting for them?>> Because people are dissatisfied with Congress in general, not their own senators and representatives. I guess it's a case where the whole is perceied as being less than the sum of it's parts.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If Americans are so dissatisfied with their elected leaders, why do they keep voting for them?<< They are more dissatisfied with everyone else's elected leaders than they are with their own. If they were truly dissatisfied with their own, they'd vote them out.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think the "majority" of people who reelect their own are doing so consciously. They show up, see either (D) or (R) next to a name and pull the trigger. In fact, an underwhelming number of people turn out to the polls. The incumbent has far more advantages than a want-to-be, many people choose the party ticket without giving it much thought and, of course, they have the financial resources. How many voters do you think even read the sample ballots going in? I work at a polling location (the facility itself...I don't work the polls thank goodness) and it is amazing the ignorance I hear in the lines while people wait to get in. I mean, truly astonishing. And, this community is wealthy and supposedly more engaged than most. Our leaders are only as capable as those that put them there...and that says a lot.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Just because I don't approve of what my Congressman does, doesn't mean I won't vote for him. Sometimes, it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I'm sorry gang but we're stuck with the K boys Kennedy/Kerry and I vote against them EVERY time and they win because of the trusting and selfish folks like my parents who love the pork they bring home like the "Big Dig."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'm sorry gang but we're stuck with the K boys Kennedy/Kerry and I vote against them EVERY time and they win because of the trusting and selfish folks like my parents who love the pork they bring home like the "Big Dig.">> Bringing home a certain amount of pork is a legitimate role of our legislators. I wish ours in Minnesota would do more of that. I'm tired of Minnesotans paying far more in Federal Taxes than we get back in Federal Spending.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Take our K boys free of charge RT! The problem is when everyone thinks like that, and most people do, that's the main reason for all the massive waste in government spending.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Bringing home a certain amount of pork is a legitimate role of our legislators. I wish ours in Minnesota would do more of that.> I don't want my congressman to bring home more bacon - I want my congressman to stop stealing pigs.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I don't want my congressman to bring home more bacon - I want my congressman to stop stealing pigs.>> I don't necessarily agree with your point of view, but I LOVE the metaphor.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Mmm, there's nothing tastier to this Washingtonian than corn-fed Minnesotan pork. Squeal, piggie! I need a new bridge and a new tunnel!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Another factor is that most congressional districts these days are gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives - more than ever before. I think 95% of all districts now are considered "safe" - i.e. sufficiently tilted towards either Dem. or Rep. to all but ensure re-election of the incumbent. One normally only sees turnover now in the case of retirement, or major proof of wrongdoing.
