With the midterm election in November and Congress sitting
on a 13 percent approval rating, many Americans are eager to change the trend
of re-electing incumbents who seem to have an artificial advantage. Rep. Mick
Mulvaney (R-S.C.) has suggested an amendment to the constitution that would
limit Congressmen to 24 years of service (12 in the house and 12 in the Senate);
a suggestion that is meant to pacify Americans and make sure that the status
quo endures. This non-fix is just as unlikely to occur as a legitimate fix such
as proportional representation.
Once again, a Republican is able to pass a counterintuitive,
insincere, solution as a reasonable one. Whether it’s narrowing the gap between
rich and poor with tax cuts for the rich, or reducing gun violence with more
guns, they always seem to solve problems with policies that don’t quite make
sense. Now they want to curb our frustration with the people who represent us,
by making sure that we can only be frustrated with any individual for 24 years
at a time. Some of us would have assumed that electing a good person in the
first place, rather than limiting the bad person to a quarter century of
service, would have been a better idea.
The artificial advantage afforded to incumbent Congressmen (incumbents
also possess intrinsic advantages) has to do with Gerrymandering. Since
Gerrymandering is such a funny word, one sounds like a crazy liberal when they
use it, compared to a person who simply wants term limits. Gerrymandering is,
of course, redistricting with sinister intentions.
Whatever party runs the
state legislature is in charge of figuring out where the districts will be
(with a few exceptions). So, they draw them in such a way that maximizes the
potential for their fellow party members to be elected, while many Americans
are not represented adequately.
In 2012, for example, Democrats running for the House of
Representatives received 1.4 million more votes than their Republican
counterparts, yet the Republicans remained in control of the house. This is
because the idea behind Gerrymandering is to draw a couple of throw away
district lines that contain all of your opponents. This wastes their votes, if they even bother
to vote. There are folks on the left who think that a third party, comprised of
retired judges and other civil servants, should draw the districts. Why does
the left favor this idea while the right favors term limits instead? Could it
be because the right is in control and they know that term limits will never
happen?
