- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why does congress reward reelection?
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:35 pm
I was having a discussion with my sister the other day on who she was going to vote for in the general election for Senator. She actually brought up a fairly valid point about how we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by NOT reelecting ML. Now, before y'all go off on how much you hate ML this isn't a thread about her per se.
So here is what this thread is about, why are all committee heads based on seniority? You end up hurting any earmarking of funds to the local communities by electing a new Senator/Congressman. There has to be a better way of appointing committee heads that wouldn't benefit from reelection.
ETA: English is hard
So here is what this thread is about, why are all committee heads based on seniority? You end up hurting any earmarking of funds to the local communities by electing a new Senator/Congressman. There has to be a better way of appointing committee heads that wouldn't benefit from reelection.
ETA: English is hard
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 6:38 pm
4
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:40 pm to carbola
It's worse than that. Committee seats are used as a means to maintain the status quo.
You don't get a committee chair unless you play the man's game.
You don't get a committee chair unless you play the man's game.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:42 pm to carbola
OK. Believe it or not, people who know how to make government squeal like a pig are worth more on capitol hill (a misnomer as DC is flat as a pancake really. Also remember the best titty bars are a few blocks away from the gentrified areas) then some jackass who can't find his arse with both hands and a road map.
NOOOOOO... you and others might say... But a Congressman who knows how to work the system and bring home the bacon is worth 5 idealists who have no clue.
NOOOOOO... you and others might say... But a Congressman who knows how to work the system and bring home the bacon is worth 5 idealists who have no clue.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:47 pm to Arksulli
quote:
NOOOOOO... you and others might say... But a Congressman who knows how to work the system and bring home the bacon is worth 5 idealists who have no clue.
I can agree to that, but that doesn't explain why seniority is used as the sole metric
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:50 pm to carbola
quote:
I can agree to that, but that doesn't explain why seniority is used as the sole metric
Because the people that set up the rules...WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED!!!
They set it up precisely to be able to say "re-elect me because I've been elected before"
Posted on 10/30/14 at 6:52 pm to carbola
Its just like any other job. Who's more likely to get any small perk, the guy who's been there 20 years or the guy who just started last week?
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:07 pm to Arksulli
quote:
But a Congressman who knows how to work the system and bring home the bacon is worth 5 idealists who have no clue.
Electing frickers who 'bring home the bacon' is a huge part of the problem.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:16 pm to carbola
Senate and House Democrats have no rules on limiting the time their members serve as chairman or ranking leader of a committee.
House Republicans are limited to six years total as either chairman or ranking member of any given committee.
Senate Republicans have a "hybrid" system, which limits them to no more than six years as a chairman of a given committee, but if they have served any time as ranking member (not to exceed six years) prior to completing six years as chairman, that is allowed.
Clearly, the Republicans are a step ahead in this process.
House Republicans are limited to six years total as either chairman or ranking member of any given committee.
Senate Republicans have a "hybrid" system, which limits them to no more than six years as a chairman of a given committee, but if they have served any time as ranking member (not to exceed six years) prior to completing six years as chairman, that is allowed.
Clearly, the Republicans are a step ahead in this process.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 7:32 pm
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:17 pm to FightinTigersDammit
It's like letting the kids decide when it's time to eat from the cookie jar.
Man, this stinks when reality hits you in the face.
We're screwed
Man, this stinks when reality hits you in the face.
We're screwed
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:29 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Electing frickers who 'bring home the bacon' is a huge part of the problem.
Not a problem at all if your elected official is bringing home the bacon for your district.
It may or may not be a problem for the country overall, but politics is *always* about local interests.
ETA: Thing is, the whole concept of "what is best for the country" is irrelevant. So this system works quite well for getting self-interested parties to divvy up the money without coming to blows.
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 10/30/14 at 7:38 pm to foshizzle
quote:
Not a problem at all if your elected official is bringing home the bacon for your district. It may or may not be a problem for the country overall, but politics is *always* about local interests. ETA: Thing is, the whole concept of "what is best for the country" is irrelevant. So this system works quite well for getting self-interested parties to divvy up the money without coming to blows.
When you put it that way, it does put a method to this madness.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 8:14 pm to SquirrelyBama
quote:
When you put it that way, it does put a method to this madness.
I'm quite serious. Hardly anyone votes for "the country", they vote for what helps or hurts them personally.
Democracy isn't about getting what you want. It's about being able to expect you'll have a realistic chance next election cycle when you lose today. That is very precisely why we don't have bloody revolutions. You know the future isn't over just because the "other side" won this time.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 8:39 pm to foshizzle
Oh I get what your saying
I was agreeing with your reasoning
Like Harold Lasswell said...
"Politics is the struggle over who gets what, when, and how"
I was agreeing with your reasoning
Like Harold Lasswell said...
"Politics is the struggle over who gets what, when, and how"
This post was edited on 10/30/14 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 10/30/14 at 9:54 pm to SquirrelyBama
It isn't all corruption/cronyism based. Seniority was initially implemented about 100 years ago because Speaker Cannon was a bully and a tyrant and the members eventually rebelled. In order to keep any individual from having too much power, they implemented the seniority system, which of course led to its own set of problems.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 10:02 pm to Arksulli
quote:
NOOOOOO... you and others might say... But a Congressman who knows how to work the system and bring home the bacon is worth 5 idealists who have no clue.
Eh....yes and no.
The way the system is setup, yeah, bringing home the bacon is good.
Ideally, there would be no bacon to bring home. They should be legislating on a national level, not a state level.
Congress is designed to legislate NATIONAL level needs, not STATE level needs. That is what STATE level elected officials are for.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 10:13 pm to carbola
12 years ago I had a conversation with a guy who said that we needed to re-elect ML for her seniority. I told him no, we need to get her out now before it was too late and her seniority really became a factor. I'd rather start over on seniority than have the wrong party in charge.
Posted on 10/30/14 at 10:33 pm to Srbtiger06
quote:
Congress is designed to legislate NATIONAL level needs, not STATE level needs. That is what STATE level elected officials are for.
Congress is explicitly designed to represent state interests. Read the Federalist Papers sometime.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News