Welcome to Congress! Here's your cubicle, telephone and script.
June 16, 2016 4:59 PM Subscribe
What's a day in the life of a typical elected U.S. congressperson like? Do you imagine various committee meetings, constituent handshaking and House floor voting sessions? Well think again. Members of congress are increasingly expected to spend the majority of their working day holed up in a tiny cubicle in a call center down the street outfitted with a phone, a list of numbers and a telemarketing script. On April 24, CBS's 60 Minutes aired an exposé on the real business of congress: dialing for dollars.
[Video accessible only to CBS All Access passholders, but segment transcript is below.]
[Video accessible only to CBS All Access passholders, but segment transcript is below.]
Last Week Tonight also covered this on April 3.
posted by miguelcervantes at 5:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by miguelcervantes at 5:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wish I could say this surprised me in any way, but it doesn't.
posted by Archelaus at 5:14 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Archelaus at 5:14 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Can we switch to electing Congress similar to how we find jurors? If you're a registered voter, you can be selected at random. If selected, you need to pass a test on the Constitution. If you pass, you're in for two years, never to be selected again.
I don't see how it could be any worse.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [65 favorites]
I don't see how it could be any worse.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [65 favorites]
People who are themselves mostly millionaires, obsequiously kissing the asses of multi-millionaires and billionaires over the phone.
posted by XMLicious at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 5:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [16 favorites]
Can we switch to electing Congress similar to how we find jurors? If you're a registered voter, you can be selected at random. If selected, you need to pass a test on the Constitution. If you pass, you're in for two years, never to be selected again.
It worked for Athens…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
It worked for Athens…
posted by Going To Maine at 5:20 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
But I mean, to be clear: I’m not certain who likes the current situation. Congresspeople don’t, because it eats their time. Constituents don’t, because their congressperson is busy. Perhaps anti-government libertarians like it as long-game proof that government is bunk, but that seems like a stretch. It’s a very strange nadir.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 5:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
Jesus, I knew fundraising was out of hand, but I thought it involved dinners, golf outings, back room deals, that kind of thing. Not a call center. This is a colossal waste of everyone's time.
posted by Countess Elena at 5:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by Countess Elena at 5:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
I don't see how it could be any worse.
That's sort of how you get the NH House, which is about as wretched a hive of scum and villainy as you will find. I mean a really catastrophically stupid place even by the lenient standards of US state legislatures.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:25 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
That's sort of how you get the NH House, which is about as wretched a hive of scum and villainy as you will find. I mean a really catastrophically stupid place even by the lenient standards of US state legislatures.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:25 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
sounds like we need more than 538 critters, and or publically funded elections.
posted by eustatic at 5:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 5:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yeah, there's definitely such a thing as being too representative of the people.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:37 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
i don't believe it - 30 hours a week telemarketing for our two major parties instead of governing?
our political system is corrupt and out of control - why should we keep supporting it?
this may be my last election voting for a major party
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
our political system is corrupt and out of control - why should we keep supporting it?
this may be my last election voting for a major party
posted by pyramid termite at 5:41 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
When I watched the John Oliver piece on this made me laugh and cry at the same time. I was picturing Robin Williams as the genie saying "Federal Government Power! . . . itty bitty call center."
posted by cmfletcher at 5:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
posted by cmfletcher at 5:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [22 favorites]
Could be worse. They could be spending all that time passing their shitty legislation.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [13 favorites]
Also in the venn diagram of political thought, Trump and I agree that this is distasteful. Although I suspect it's for completely different reasons.
posted by cmfletcher at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by cmfletcher at 5:55 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Pyramid Termite: the problem is, due to First Past the Post election style, literally the only parties that can win are the two established parties.
So just voting third party isn't a fix, alone. More steps are needed.
posted by Archelaus at 6:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
So just voting third party isn't a fix, alone. More steps are needed.
posted by Archelaus at 6:01 PM on June 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
I’m not certain who likes the current situation.
The people on the other end of the phone.
posted by buzzv at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
The people on the other end of the phone.
posted by buzzv at 6:05 PM on June 16, 2016 [14 favorites]
I’m not certain who likes the current situation.
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
posted by IndigoJones at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
posted by IndigoJones at 6:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [18 favorites]
I've often wondered how much of the congressional money problem could be solved by simply making Congressional terms a reasonable, useful length. Two years is a waste of time and money. By the time a new congressperson even knows where her office is, she has to run for reelection again.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:10 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've often wondered how much of the congressional money problem could be solved by simply making Congressional terms a reasonable, useful length. Two years is a waste of time and money. By the time a new congressperson even knows where her office is, she has to run for reelection again.
It irritates me when people blame the Constitution for problems which have little or nothing to do with it. Two year terms for the House of Representatives have worked pretty well for most of our nation's history. The problems that have arisen with it have done so relatively recently, and because of extraneous forces.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:17 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
It irritates me when people blame the Constitution for problems which have little or nothing to do with it. Two year terms for the House of Representatives have worked pretty well for most of our nation's history. The problems that have arisen with it have done so relatively recently, and because of extraneous forces.
posted by AdamCSnider at 6:17 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
I’m not certain who likes the current situation.
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
The 1%, of course. Who do you think pays the lobbyists to write the legislation? And who do you think they're writing it for?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
The 1%, of course. Who do you think pays the lobbyists to write the legislation? And who do you think they're writing it for?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Why Do Congressmen Spend Only Half Their Time Serving Us? (Newsweek)
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:28 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 6:28 PM on June 16, 2016
I’m not certain who likes the current situation.
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
No! That’s the thing. I think it was in the TAL piece, but they basically talk to a lobbyist whose attitude towards this is like, “What, again? I’ve got work to do. Leave me alone.” Everyone’s time is wasted. (Of course, that TAL piece also takes a fairly nuanced attitude towards the nature of money in politics, which -as indicated by the success of the Sanders campaign- is not an attitude that’s in vogue.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
No! That’s the thing. I think it was in the TAL piece, but they basically talk to a lobbyist whose attitude towards this is like, “What, again? I’ve got work to do. Leave me alone.” Everyone’s time is wasted. (Of course, that TAL piece also takes a fairly nuanced attitude towards the nature of money in politics, which -as indicated by the success of the Sanders campaign- is not an attitude that’s in vogue.)
posted by Going To Maine at 6:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
she has to run for reelection againThis dialing for dollars thing is independent of election cycles. Even people who've been their state representative for about 3,000 years in a guaranteed district are still required by their party to do this. The model daily schedule for incoming Congressional Freshmen prepared by the Democratic Committee features 4 hours of daily call time, 1-2 hours on constituents, 2 hours on the floor, 1 hour for outreach (press, dinners, etc), and 1 hour of "recharge time." According to HuffPost, it is considered "poor form" for new Congresspeople to be on the floor when they could be fundraising.
Some people get away with giving their Committee the middle finger, but according to many Congresspeople it's difficult to resist the indoctrination from Party leadership that starts the minute you arrive on the Hill.
posted by xyzzy at 6:48 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Can we switch to electing Congress similar to how we find jurors? If you're a registered voter, you can be selected at random."
I actually sincerely believe this.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
I actually sincerely believe this.
posted by kevinbelt at 6:59 PM on June 16, 2016 [10 favorites]
I've often wondered how much of the congressional money problem could be solved by simply making Congressional terms a reasonable, useful length. Two years is a waste of time and money.
two years is a reasonable, useful length - it's the re-election part that screws things up
posted by pyramid termite at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
two years is a reasonable, useful length - it's the re-election part that screws things up
posted by pyramid termite at 7:03 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
This dialing for dollars thing is independent of election cycles.
No, I realize that. But my thought is simply that the fundraising demand is because of the need to constantly be re-elected, and that perhaps if Congressmen were elected for twice as long, they'd only have to spend half as much money to do it (not half as much per election, just have half as many elections). Citizens United may have made the fundraising problem worse, but it's not like it created it.
Two year terms for the House of Representatives have worked pretty well for most of our nation's history.
Have they? I don't know. I'm not even American. I am, apparently, irritating. But just because they have been 2 years in the past doesn't mean that's necessarily a good choice. Most countries in the world seems to use 4 or 5 year terms, and a relative few use 3 year terms. If 2 year terms were a really good idea, wouldn't we see them used more often?
posted by jacquilynne at 7:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
No, I realize that. But my thought is simply that the fundraising demand is because of the need to constantly be re-elected, and that perhaps if Congressmen were elected for twice as long, they'd only have to spend half as much money to do it (not half as much per election, just have half as many elections). Citizens United may have made the fundraising problem worse, but it's not like it created it.
Two year terms for the House of Representatives have worked pretty well for most of our nation's history.
Have they? I don't know. I'm not even American. I am, apparently, irritating. But just because they have been 2 years in the past doesn't mean that's necessarily a good choice. Most countries in the world seems to use 4 or 5 year terms, and a relative few use 3 year terms. If 2 year terms were a really good idea, wouldn't we see them used more often?
posted by jacquilynne at 7:12 PM on June 16, 2016 [4 favorites]
My eyes were open to this, for the first time, when I watched The Wire and had to witness Carcetti's agony at doing the "dialing for dollars." I honestly had not known how hard-core this exercise was until I saw that show. Then again I didn't know about a lot of things until I watched all the seasons of The Wire.
posted by memewit at 7:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by memewit at 7:19 PM on June 16, 2016 [11 favorites]
I don't see how it could be any worse.
I'd say it is the difference between throwing a swimmer and a non-swimmer into a pool of hungry sharks.
One has a very slim chance of survival and the other is just chum.
posted by srboisvert at 7:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd say it is the difference between throwing a swimmer and a non-swimmer into a pool of hungry sharks.
One has a very slim chance of survival and the other is just chum.
posted by srboisvert at 7:32 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Even people who've been their state representative for about 3,000 years in a guaranteed district are still required by their party to do this.
Which explains a bit about why it's so hard to get term limits passed, because neither party wants to throw away their golden geese after they've gotten good at laying eggs.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2016
Which explains a bit about why it's so hard to get term limits passed, because neither party wants to throw away their golden geese after they've gotten good at laying eggs.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:39 PM on June 16, 2016
this may be my last election voting for a major party
But the 2020 Republican nominee is the Deep Hive AI Mind and one of their campaign promises is literally, "Kill all humans"!
posted by indubitable at 7:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
But the 2020 Republican nominee is the Deep Hive AI Mind and one of their campaign promises is literally, "Kill all humans"!
posted by indubitable at 7:40 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Hmmm. How much money, exactly, do I have to donate to get a regular call from a Congressman/woman?
Asking for a friend.
posted by HighLowKitty at 7:40 PM on June 16, 2016
Asking for a friend.
posted by HighLowKitty at 7:40 PM on June 16, 2016
I’m not certain who likes the current situation.
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
*raises hand* Lobbyist here, and nope, I hates it. Even when I lobbied for an organization that had a PAC, I hated it. And when I used to work on the Hill, and occasionally had to escort my (very decent) boss across the street for call time, he REALLY REALLY hated it. It's a stupid, terrible way to run a legislature. Most of the lobbyists I know would much, much rather have a functional, thoughtful legislative process rather than government that is sold to the highest bidder.
posted by bowtiesarecool at 7:43 PM on June 16, 2016 [23 favorites]
Lobbyists, of course. Who do you think writes legislation?
*raises hand* Lobbyist here, and nope, I hates it. Even when I lobbied for an organization that had a PAC, I hated it. And when I used to work on the Hill, and occasionally had to escort my (very decent) boss across the street for call time, he REALLY REALLY hated it. It's a stupid, terrible way to run a legislature. Most of the lobbyists I know would much, much rather have a functional, thoughtful legislative process rather than government that is sold to the highest bidder.
posted by bowtiesarecool at 7:43 PM on June 16, 2016 [23 favorites]
Which explains a bit about why it's so hard to get term limits passed, because neither party wants to throw away their golden geese after they've gotten good at laying eggs.
It's hard to get term limits passed because it would require a constitutional amendment. In any case, we've done that at the state level and the detectable effects are only barely more than fuck-all, and mixed at that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
It's hard to get term limits passed because it would require a constitutional amendment. In any case, we've done that at the state level and the detectable effects are only barely more than fuck-all, and mixed at that.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:06 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
So if literally no one likes this, WHY IS IT STILL HAPPENING?
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:49 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hmmm. How much money, exactly, do I have to donate to get a regular call from a Congressman/woman?
I gave $277 each to about 15 different Democrats based on ActBlue's list from this Ask.Mefi question in 2012, and I still get semi-annual calls from a few of them. And there's a Democratic candidate from upstate New York who's called me twice this week, bless his heart.
posted by purpleclover at 8:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
I gave $277 each to about 15 different Democrats based on ActBlue's list from this Ask.Mefi question in 2012, and I still get semi-annual calls from a few of them. And there's a Democratic candidate from upstate New York who's called me twice this week, bless his heart.
posted by purpleclover at 8:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because nobody wants to be the first to say no and risk losing.
Also because the Supreme Court isn't favorable towards doing anything to stop it.
posted by dinty_moore at 8:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also because the Supreme Court isn't favorable towards doing anything to stop it.
posted by dinty_moore at 8:52 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
But I mean, to be clear: I’m not certain who likes the current situation....
So if literally no one likes this, WHY IS IT STILL HAPPENING?
"The implicit question is – if everyone hates the current system, who perpetuates it? And Ginsberg answers: “Moloch”. It’s powerful not because it’s correct – nobody literally thinks an ancient Carthaginian demon causes everything – but because thinking of the system as an agent throws into relief the degree to which the system isn’t an agent.
...
13. Government corruption.
...
Government are competing against one another to get elected or promoted. And suppose part of optimizing for electability is optimizing campaign donations from corporations – or maybe it isn’t, but officials think it is.
...
So although from a god’s-eye-view everyone knows that eliminating corporate welfare is the best solution, each individual official’s personal incentives push her to maintain it.
14. Congress. Only 9% of Americans like it, suggesting a lower approval rating than cockroaches, head lice, or traffic jams. However, 62% of people who know who their own Congressional representative is approve of them. In theory, it should be really hard to have a democratically elected body that maintains a 9% approval rating for more than one election cycle. In practice, every representative’s incentive is to appeal to his or her constituency while throwing the rest of the country under the bus – something at which they apparently succeed.
From a god’s-eye-view, every Congressperson ought to think only of the good of the nation. From within the system, you do what gets you elected."
posted by roystgnr at 8:53 PM on June 16, 2016 [7 favorites]
Most of the lobbyists I know would much, much rather have a functional, thoughtful legislative process rather than government that is sold to the highest bidder.
Priced out of the market, eh? ;-)
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:13 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
Priced out of the market, eh? ;-)
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:13 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I never expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be into Carthaginian demons, ancient or otherwise.
posted by ovenmitt at 9:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by ovenmitt at 9:18 PM on June 16, 2016 [2 favorites]
I never expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be into Carthaginian demons, ancient or otherwise.
*scribblescribblescribble*
Oh don't mind me, just working on my next urban fantasy novel...say, do you think RBG likes stakes?
*scribblescribblescribble*
posted by happyroach at 9:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
*scribblescribblescribble*
Oh don't mind me, just working on my next urban fantasy novel...say, do you think RBG likes stakes?
*scribblescribblescribble*
posted by happyroach at 9:23 PM on June 16, 2016 [12 favorites]
So if literally no one likes this, WHY IS IT STILL HAPPENING?
It's a local minimum or a Nash equilibrium or a Pareto optimum or collective action problem or whatever fancy model you want to use to describe it.
But it's simple. The first person or party who stops doing this is at a disadvantage and loses. They are replaced by people are willing to keep doing this, even if they don't like it. It's like natural selection giving elk big horns that help the species not at all.
And if you try to propose it as a global change--like everyone does it at once--remember politics is a zero sum game. It will hurt someone, probably the party in power (or at least introduce the risk they lose power.) Even if they don't like the current system of one hour a day doing legislating, they probably like it more than zero hours a day doing legislating.
As for the citizens--well, I really hate the system but is it the number one thing wrong with the country for me? Would I be willing to concede the fight on income inequality, gay & civil rights, civil liberties and everything else I care about as a primary issue to opt out or vote for a political naif like Larry Lessig as a statement? Apparently not yet, based on all my recent and projected votes. YMMV.
posted by mark k at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's a local minimum or a Nash equilibrium or a Pareto optimum or collective action problem or whatever fancy model you want to use to describe it.
But it's simple. The first person or party who stops doing this is at a disadvantage and loses. They are replaced by people are willing to keep doing this, even if they don't like it. It's like natural selection giving elk big horns that help the species not at all.
And if you try to propose it as a global change--like everyone does it at once--remember politics is a zero sum game. It will hurt someone, probably the party in power (or at least introduce the risk they lose power.) Even if they don't like the current system of one hour a day doing legislating, they probably like it more than zero hours a day doing legislating.
As for the citizens--well, I really hate the system but is it the number one thing wrong with the country for me? Would I be willing to concede the fight on income inequality, gay & civil rights, civil liberties and everything else I care about as a primary issue to opt out or vote for a political naif like Larry Lessig as a statement? Apparently not yet, based on all my recent and projected votes. YMMV.
posted by mark k at 9:28 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]
Honestly I really could give a shit about the system.
1)Time spent as glorified telemarketers is probably time that they can't spend doing other stupid shit.
2)The entire business of congresscritters is about getting re-elected or getting onto the lobbyist gravy train
3)Most congresscritters are barely qualified to do anything resembling governance, look good and convincing on camera, don't look like you are literally willing to sell Grandma to slavers, etc
4)Most of the actual governance activities of congress are basically run by staff, you didn't really think that congresscritters actually write most bills, or write reports, or generate handy power point presentations
5)I'm not sure that meeting with constituents in Washington is really that useful in many cases besides that's kinda why you have about a zillion recesses in congress to do that sort of constituent meet and greet bullshit
6)Do we really need more time for congresscritters to engage in largely meaningless posturing on the house or senate floor? Or asking stupid rhetorical questions at hearings where everyone's mind is made up before anyone enters the room?
Yes it would be cool if Congress was kinda like a coffee shop where all these cool kids sat around discussing political and moral philosophy, economics, etc but that model of a politician went away a long fucking time ago. The truth of the matter is that just like most other aspects of political life in the US the progressive period seems to have begun a long process of creating a professional bureaucratic class that actually do most of the acts of implementing policy while elected representatives like your representative or your mayor or your councilman tend to set broad direction rather than focus on all the specifics of governance.
I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing although you could definitely make the case than an unelected bureaucratic class is specifically not what the founders would've wanted but the technical complexity of governance has become massive and that requires deep knowledge that is generally absent in most congresscritters.
posted by vuron at 9:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
1)Time spent as glorified telemarketers is probably time that they can't spend doing other stupid shit.
2)The entire business of congresscritters is about getting re-elected or getting onto the lobbyist gravy train
3)Most congresscritters are barely qualified to do anything resembling governance, look good and convincing on camera, don't look like you are literally willing to sell Grandma to slavers, etc
4)Most of the actual governance activities of congress are basically run by staff, you didn't really think that congresscritters actually write most bills, or write reports, or generate handy power point presentations
5)I'm not sure that meeting with constituents in Washington is really that useful in many cases besides that's kinda why you have about a zillion recesses in congress to do that sort of constituent meet and greet bullshit
6)Do we really need more time for congresscritters to engage in largely meaningless posturing on the house or senate floor? Or asking stupid rhetorical questions at hearings where everyone's mind is made up before anyone enters the room?
Yes it would be cool if Congress was kinda like a coffee shop where all these cool kids sat around discussing political and moral philosophy, economics, etc but that model of a politician went away a long fucking time ago. The truth of the matter is that just like most other aspects of political life in the US the progressive period seems to have begun a long process of creating a professional bureaucratic class that actually do most of the acts of implementing policy while elected representatives like your representative or your mayor or your councilman tend to set broad direction rather than focus on all the specifics of governance.
I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing although you could definitely make the case than an unelected bureaucratic class is specifically not what the founders would've wanted but the technical complexity of governance has become massive and that requires deep knowledge that is generally absent in most congresscritters.
posted by vuron at 9:51 PM on June 16, 2016 [3 favorites]
But I mean, to be clear: I’m not certain who likes the current situation. Congresspeople don’t, because it eats their time. Constituents don’t, because their congressperson is busy. Perhaps anti-government libertarians like it as long-game proof that government is bunk, but that seems like a stretch. It’s a very strange nadir.
A big part of the LWT piece is that, really, no one likes it, but everyone feels like they have to participate to keep up with their opponents. Something similar, it turns out, is going down with Super PACs; millionaires hate the system too, because they like to hold on to their money, but they feel if they don't do their part paying for their interests, they'll be overwhelmed with money going to the other side. Full Frontal did a bit on that not long ago.
Jesus, I knew fundraising was out of hand, but I thought it involved dinners, golf outings, back room deals, that kind of thing. Not a call center.
Oh, it involves those things too. One of the more entertaining things about LWT's piece is the news that restaurants in DC really do well in this climate, especially this one particular seafood place, Johnny's Half Shell, that is much frequented for fundraisers. (A Google search for them claims that the place is now "Permanently closed," but their website is still up.)
posted by JHarris at 10:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
A big part of the LWT piece is that, really, no one likes it, but everyone feels like they have to participate to keep up with their opponents. Something similar, it turns out, is going down with Super PACs; millionaires hate the system too, because they like to hold on to their money, but they feel if they don't do their part paying for their interests, they'll be overwhelmed with money going to the other side. Full Frontal did a bit on that not long ago.
Jesus, I knew fundraising was out of hand, but I thought it involved dinners, golf outings, back room deals, that kind of thing. Not a call center.
Oh, it involves those things too. One of the more entertaining things about LWT's piece is the news that restaurants in DC really do well in this climate, especially this one particular seafood place, Johnny's Half Shell, that is much frequented for fundraisers. (A Google search for them claims that the place is now "Permanently closed," but their website is still up.)
posted by JHarris at 10:33 PM on June 16, 2016 [1 favorite]
Johnny's is closed now but reopening soon in Adams Morgan. Moving locations (and to a smaller place) probably means losing the fundraising crowds.
posted by mochapickle at 11:08 PM on June 16, 2016
posted by mochapickle at 11:08 PM on June 16, 2016
No! That’s the thing. I think it was in the TAL piece, but they basically talk to a lobbyist whose attitude towards this is like, “What, again? I’ve got work to do. Leave me alone.”
Said work being to influence/subvert legislation for their paymasters. And while I don't doubt that there are virtuous and high-minded folk among the ilk (I've known some), the fact remains that a lobbyist's entire purpose is self interested; consequently, their complaints about time wasted or "oh this terrible system" have to come off as a bit rich. They're already privileged, front of the line- don't bitch with your mouth full.
To be even more flip, I can see a sort of upside. The more time spent on this nonsense is less time spent on bulking up the legal code.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:48 AM on June 17, 2016
Said work being to influence/subvert legislation for their paymasters. And while I don't doubt that there are virtuous and high-minded folk among the ilk (I've known some), the fact remains that a lobbyist's entire purpose is self interested; consequently, their complaints about time wasted or "oh this terrible system" have to come off as a bit rich. They're already privileged, front of the line- don't bitch with your mouth full.
To be even more flip, I can see a sort of upside. The more time spent on this nonsense is less time spent on bulking up the legal code.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:48 AM on June 17, 2016
Can we just outsource the jobs to India?
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Nanukthedog at 3:29 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
sounds like we need...publically funded elections.
Whoa, whoa. Slow down there, comrade.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Whoa, whoa. Slow down there, comrade.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes it would be cool if Congress was kinda like a coffee shop where all these cool kids sat around discussing political and moral philosophy, economics, etc but that model of a politician went away a long fucking time ago.
That sounds like a straw man of sorts. I'd be more concerned to have them fielding requests from their constituents (not on a highest-bidder basis) and relaying their concerns to the legislature; you know, as representatives are supposed to do in a representative democracy. Whether they care to talmudically debate John Stewart Mill and David Hume in the course of doing their job is more or less irrelevant.
posted by acb at 4:59 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
That sounds like a straw man of sorts. I'd be more concerned to have them fielding requests from their constituents (not on a highest-bidder basis) and relaying their concerns to the legislature; you know, as representatives are supposed to do in a representative democracy. Whether they care to talmudically debate John Stewart Mill and David Hume in the course of doing their job is more or less irrelevant.
posted by acb at 4:59 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
A task so wretched, even Donald Trump won't do it:
While Trump had promised Priebus that he would call two dozen top GOP donors, when RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh recently presented Trump with a list of more than 20 donors, he called only three before stopping, according to two sources familiar with the situation. It’s unclear whether he resumed the donor calls later.
posted by Bromius at 5:00 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
While Trump had promised Priebus that he would call two dozen top GOP donors, when RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh recently presented Trump with a list of more than 20 donors, he called only three before stopping, according to two sources familiar with the situation. It’s unclear whether he resumed the donor calls later.
posted by Bromius at 5:00 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I gave a money to several democratic Senate candidates in 08 and have been on the list ever since. I get a call or two from a congressperson a month. It is very sad.
posted by shothotbot at 5:12 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by shothotbot at 5:12 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I gave a money to several democratic Senate candidates in 08 and have been on the list ever since. I get a call or two from a congressperson a month. It is very sad.
You people getting phone calls from Congresspeople, this is your chance to advocate for legislation. Do you ever take advantage?
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
You people getting phone calls from Congresspeople, this is your chance to advocate for legislation. Do you ever take advantage?
posted by LastOfHisKind at 5:22 AM on June 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, seriously - I knew being a congress critter was basically prostitution, but I never realized it had devolved to telemarketing.
posted by Mooski at 5:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Mooski at 5:30 AM on June 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
What these articles never get is how many members of Congress love to dial for dollars. That's unseemly to admit, but some love the pitch and close, some love the pure simplicity of the task, some love actually connecting with party enthusiasts and successful people who can share 60 seconds of insight, etc.
posted by MattD at 5:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 5:33 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
The best way to get good at a thing is to practice, if you like doing that thing, you'll practice more. So it shouldn't surprise us that successful congress people are the ones that like dialing for donors. They like doing it, that's how they got so good at it.
posted by VTX at 5:40 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by VTX at 5:40 AM on June 17, 2016
Got a cause? Cancer, feed the poor, trans rights?
Seems like a Big Data App is needed.
How much to get on the call list? Coordinate the core constituency to give the min & app register.
The App predicts when the congressperson will call, feed each callee the talking points: So glad to hear from you, we're planning a huge huge fundraiser, but XYZ bill needs your support first. Call me back with an update.
$$$$'s for good works.
posted by sammyo at 6:21 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Seems like a Big Data App is needed.
How much to get on the call list? Coordinate the core constituency to give the min & app register.
The App predicts when the congressperson will call, feed each callee the talking points: So glad to hear from you, we're planning a huge huge fundraiser, but XYZ bill needs your support first. Call me back with an update.
$$$$'s for good works.
posted by sammyo at 6:21 AM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
In late-stage capitalism, elected representative calls you!
posted by radicalawyer at 6:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
posted by radicalawyer at 6:28 AM on June 17, 2016 [12 favorites]
My plan, when I start getting calls for the elections in November, is simply to tell them that every time I get a call from their party, I'm not giving them anything but will instead make a donation to the other party. The possibility of even accidentally helping Trump will keep me from actually following through and making the donation but it's what I'm telling whoever calls me.
posted by VTX at 6:56 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 6:56 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
sammyo, that is actually a terrifying possibility.
We Live In The Future, just like the sock market is now run by competing HFT we all need to use the optimum tools available.
What I really don't understand, the Obama campaign won to a degree on high tech, where were the dem analysts in 2010?
posted by sammyo at 7:18 AM on June 17, 2016
We Live In The Future, just like the sock market is now run by competing HFT we all need to use the optimum tools available.
What I really don't understand, the Obama campaign won to a degree on high tech, where were the dem analysts in 2010?
posted by sammyo at 7:18 AM on June 17, 2016
My plan, when I start getting calls for the elections in November, is simply to tell them that every time I get a call from their party, I'm not giving them anything but will instead make a donation to the other party.
Won't help. At best, it'll stop calls from that particular campaign, but they don't share enough information frequently enough (yes, even within the same party) that this will end up being a net good for you personally.
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2016
Won't help. At best, it'll stop calls from that particular campaign, but they don't share enough information frequently enough (yes, even within the same party) that this will end up being a net good for you personally.
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 AM on June 17, 2016
but they don't share enough information frequently enough
Indeed. One year I upped my charitable giving and I wrote on my donation comments to all new charities that I didn't want to be on their permanent list and if they ever called or spam mailed I would never donate again.
It helped not at all. There's clearly just no place to write custom notes like "do not call" or "threatened to support Trump" in a meaningful way next to a donor name when you go in the system, the whole thing is computerized and your name will still get tagged as someone to e-mail or call by the computer. Only thing that works is after they call say "remove my name" and it only works for that one particular fundraising group.
posted by mark k at 7:44 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Indeed. One year I upped my charitable giving and I wrote on my donation comments to all new charities that I didn't want to be on their permanent list and if they ever called or spam mailed I would never donate again.
It helped not at all. There's clearly just no place to write custom notes like "do not call" or "threatened to support Trump" in a meaningful way next to a donor name when you go in the system, the whole thing is computerized and your name will still get tagged as someone to e-mail or call by the computer. Only thing that works is after they call say "remove my name" and it only works for that one particular fundraising group.
posted by mark k at 7:44 AM on June 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
You people getting phone calls from Congresspeople, this is your chance to advocate for legislation. Do you ever take advantage?
Never! I try to dodge their calls, mostly because I'm not going to give more money on the phone right then.
(I feel sure this is the wrong reaction.)
Real talk: What should I be saying? Help me script a thing to say, and I will say it.
I want to reduce the number of guns in the US, keep abortion legal and accessible for all women, increase worker protections and raise the federal minimum wage, and limit carbon emissions. Do I just pick one and make that my pet issue for the year? Do I have to give them more money?
(I basically found giving money in 2012 to be a junk-mail and -call producer, so much that I'm not sure I'd want to do it again. So much for democracy!)
posted by purpleclover at 8:12 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Never! I try to dodge their calls, mostly because I'm not going to give more money on the phone right then.
(I feel sure this is the wrong reaction.)
Real talk: What should I be saying? Help me script a thing to say, and I will say it.
I want to reduce the number of guns in the US, keep abortion legal and accessible for all women, increase worker protections and raise the federal minimum wage, and limit carbon emissions. Do I just pick one and make that my pet issue for the year? Do I have to give them more money?
(I basically found giving money in 2012 to be a junk-mail and -call producer, so much that I'm not sure I'd want to do it again. So much for democracy!)
posted by purpleclover at 8:12 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Won't help. At best, it'll stop calls from that particular campaign, but they don't share enough information frequently enough (yes, even within the same party) that this will end up being a net good for you personally.
It's not something I plan on doing because I think it will actually work, I'm convinced that nothing I can do on my own will. But if it makes a couple of people (like, the caller and their supervisor) doubt what they're doing just a little bit, I'll feel like I did something.
Maybe it just cements one volunteer's decision to not volunteer for the next election, maybe it just get's one more person talking about the situation, but at least it's more than nothing.
And I figure that if enough people make it clear that they're totally fed up with campaigns calling them for money, maybe, just maybe, they might actually do something about it.
I can't do much on my own to get not-Trump elected other than vote but since voting is the thing I can do, I'll do that. This is kind of the same thing. I don't know if it will have any more effect on the outcome than my vote does but it's the thing I can do so I'm going to do it.
posted by VTX at 8:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not something I plan on doing because I think it will actually work, I'm convinced that nothing I can do on my own will. But if it makes a couple of people (like, the caller and their supervisor) doubt what they're doing just a little bit, I'll feel like I did something.
Maybe it just cements one volunteer's decision to not volunteer for the next election, maybe it just get's one more person talking about the situation, but at least it's more than nothing.
And I figure that if enough people make it clear that they're totally fed up with campaigns calling them for money, maybe, just maybe, they might actually do something about it.
I can't do much on my own to get not-Trump elected other than vote but since voting is the thing I can do, I'll do that. This is kind of the same thing. I don't know if it will have any more effect on the outcome than my vote does but it's the thing I can do so I'm going to do it.
posted by VTX at 8:23 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
And I figure that if enough people make it clear that they're totally fed up with campaigns calling them for money, maybe, just maybe, they might actually do something about it.
You think they don't know that? That most of these candidates -- and the phone bank people who support them -- don't sit down to Yet Another Goddamn Hour Of Phone Duty with a sigh and a dream that next time they'll get to be a speechwriter or a field director and only have to do like six of these goddamn things a week instead of twenty?
Trust me, they do. And destroying their souls -- especially the people whom you actually agree with -- isn't going to help.
posted by Etrigan at 8:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
You think they don't know that? That most of these candidates -- and the phone bank people who support them -- don't sit down to Yet Another Goddamn Hour Of Phone Duty with a sigh and a dream that next time they'll get to be a speechwriter or a field director and only have to do like six of these goddamn things a week instead of twenty?
Trust me, they do. And destroying their souls -- especially the people whom you actually agree with -- isn't going to help.
posted by Etrigan at 8:31 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
If one assumes that corporations are people, money is speech, and it is heresy to claim that there is anything bad about inequality, then it follows that democracy should rightly take the form of an auction of influence.
Conversely, if such an auction-based system is inappropriate, it follows that one or more of the assumptions is invalid.
posted by acb at 8:38 AM on June 17, 2016
Conversely, if such an auction-based system is inappropriate, it follows that one or more of the assumptions is invalid.
posted by acb at 8:38 AM on June 17, 2016
Where did the term "congresscritter" come from? It makes me feel like I'm being represented by the cast of Emmett Otter.
posted by Biblio at 9:18 AM on June 17, 2016
posted by Biblio at 9:18 AM on June 17, 2016
WTF do you think I'm actually going to say to these people that it's going to "destroy their souls"?
It's not like I'm going to yell and scream and accuse them of murdering babies or something. I'm going to use the same polite but firm tone that I use anytime I have to interact with someone who just doing their job but represents an entity that I disagree with.
And frankly, if anything is destroying their souls, it's sitting in a call center making cold calls all day asking for money. The congress people in the article certainly seem to think so. So if I convince one person to say, "Fuck it, no more calls. I'm going to find a better way to contribute." I'll consider it a wild success. But all I really hope for is to spark a conversation.
posted by VTX at 9:18 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not like I'm going to yell and scream and accuse them of murdering babies or something. I'm going to use the same polite but firm tone that I use anytime I have to interact with someone who just doing their job but represents an entity that I disagree with.
And frankly, if anything is destroying their souls, it's sitting in a call center making cold calls all day asking for money. The congress people in the article certainly seem to think so. So if I convince one person to say, "Fuck it, no more calls. I'm going to find a better way to contribute." I'll consider it a wild success. But all I really hope for is to spark a conversation.
posted by VTX at 9:18 AM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I never expected Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be into Carthaginian demons, ancient or otherwise.
*scribblescribblescribble*
Oh don't mind me, just working on my next urban fantasy novel...say, do you think RBG likes stakes?
*scribblescribblescribble*
Um, it's Allen Ginsberg I think, not RBG... although please do carry on with the novel....
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on June 17, 2016
*scribblescribblescribble*
Oh don't mind me, just working on my next urban fantasy novel...say, do you think RBG likes stakes?
*scribblescribblescribble*
Um, it's Allen Ginsberg I think, not RBG... although please do carry on with the novel....
posted by tivalasvegas at 9:49 AM on June 17, 2016
Real talk: What should I be saying? Help me script a thing to say, and I will say it.
I want to reduce the number of guns in the US, keep abortion legal and accessible for all women, increase worker protections and raise the federal minimum wage, and limit carbon emissions. Do I just pick one and make that my pet issue for the year? Do I have to give them more money?
I am theorizing here but the constraint is roughly that you've got the attention of a member of congress for, at most, about 30 seconds. That's enough time to make a strong, supported statement about ONE THING. Don't read a script but maybe keep a brief outline on a post-it near the phone or something. I would suggest:
1) Make your case ("It's very important to me that you support XYZ.")
2) Make it clear that lots of people you know feel the same way
3) State that you take this issue into account when deciding who to vote for and financially support
posted by LastOfHisKind at 12:12 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Taking sammyo's idea a bit further... I'm assuming that the phone number called is provided by the person who donated. Instead of giving them a personal cellphone number, give them a VOIP phone number backed by a computer controlled phone bank so the computer connects the call. Connect that to a website where you can register your pet issue, as well as put some money into escrow. If/when that phone number gets called, then make that case and pledge that amount to the candidate then.
With enough people are in the system, those that are politically active can sign up to man the phones for a few hours, instead of having dinner interrupted by political-telemarketers. Sort of the inverse of phone-banking for Bernie. This also allows for pooling money, resources, and person count on various issues of the day to make a statement with much more impact. An individual who donates less than $1k might only get 30 seconds, but I'd imagine donating $10k gets you a little bit more time.
Going even further, once the system becomes popular, instead of reacting to phone calls, the people in charge of said system could go directly to the political party and present the numbers, thereby freeing Congress from having to make all these calls, as well as giving the masses an even louder voice.
Call it Crowdsourcing Democracy. Those rich enough to give away $10k over a phone call already have the ability to voice their issues to members of Congress (without being taken away for bribing politicians, mind you), so this would just be to level the playing field.
posted by fragmede at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
With enough people are in the system, those that are politically active can sign up to man the phones for a few hours, instead of having dinner interrupted by political-telemarketers. Sort of the inverse of phone-banking for Bernie. This also allows for pooling money, resources, and person count on various issues of the day to make a statement with much more impact. An individual who donates less than $1k might only get 30 seconds, but I'd imagine donating $10k gets you a little bit more time.
Going even further, once the system becomes popular, instead of reacting to phone calls, the people in charge of said system could go directly to the political party and present the numbers, thereby freeing Congress from having to make all these calls, as well as giving the masses an even louder voice.
Call it Crowdsourcing Democracy. Those rich enough to give away $10k over a phone call already have the ability to voice their issues to members of Congress (without being taken away for bribing politicians, mind you), so this would just be to level the playing field.
posted by fragmede at 1:46 PM on June 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
But do you really THINK THEY EVEN FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY WHEN THEY CALL? Really?!?!?! They simply want you to shut your mouth and open your wallet!
Honestly, our government has become such a farce. If it weren't so sad it would be laughable. And yet we're trained to believe our voice, our vote, our support, our canvassing, our letters, our phone calls can ACTUALLY CREATE CHANGE.
I posit that is the biggest, boldest lie in the history of ever. You know what will change things? A damn full-blown revolution. But don't worry, it won't happen. That takes a constituency that is awake and alert, and we're largely fast asleep.
posted by bologna on wry at 4:13 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Honestly, our government has become such a farce. If it weren't so sad it would be laughable. And yet we're trained to believe our voice, our vote, our support, our canvassing, our letters, our phone calls can ACTUALLY CREATE CHANGE.
I posit that is the biggest, boldest lie in the history of ever. You know what will change things? A damn full-blown revolution. But don't worry, it won't happen. That takes a constituency that is awake and alert, and we're largely fast asleep.
posted by bologna on wry at 4:13 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
But do you really THINK THEY EVEN FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY WHEN THEY CALL? Really?!?!?! They simply want you to shut your mouth and open your wallet!
This is a fine attitude to have, but if you hold it then you aren’t allowed to believe that money buys influence.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:18 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is a fine attitude to have, but if you hold it then you aren’t allowed to believe that money buys influence.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:18 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Point well made. I suppose I'm envisioning Mary Citizen around the corner who gives $500 and believes it's really going to lead to Mr. Congressman fighting further for her pet cause. I grant you that I am cynical to a fault.
posted by bologna on wry at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2016
posted by bologna on wry at 4:31 PM on June 17, 2016
But do you really THINK THEY EVEN FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY WHEN THEY CALL? Really?!?!?! They simply want you to shut your mouth and open your wallet!
I mean, no, I don't. Which is why I dodge their calls.
posted by purpleclover at 7:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, no, I don't. Which is why I dodge their calls.
posted by purpleclover at 7:33 PM on June 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Can we switch to electing Congress similar to how we find jurors? If you're a registered voter, you can be selected at random. If selected, you need to pass a test on the Constitution. If you pass, you're in for two years, never to be selected again.It would be the abrupt end to any pretense of democratic governance.
I don't see how it could be any worse."
The root problem isn't the Congresscritters themselves but the dysfunctional and severely selective pressures that we put onto them as well as the much worse ones we allow them to be subject to. We want Congresspeople to have careers in Congress, and if they're good at their jobs the longer the better as they get a chance to improve with experience, the idea that we want our legislators to have no expertise in governing is bizarre, much less no selection for expertise in law. We want congress who know what the fuck they're doing as they write our laws and regulate our industries and collaborate with out allies and frustrate our enemies, which requires them to have the ability last so that the real power doesn't shift from elected official to unelected professionals who would be lasting instead. The last thing we want is rich businessmen, talented party hacks, or crafty bureaucrats picking kings any more than they already do.
Putting random people in power and rapidly cycling them like this, at best, would mean that the people who govern us would have to rely on experts who could prevent them from cocking up the genuinely complex tasks involved. Those experts would then naturally form a, hopefully slowly cycling, cabal of kingmakers. Term limits make sense for the executive branch, but we need at least some mechanism to retain talented legislators so that we can milk the best for all we can.
posted by Blasdelb at 3:46 AM on June 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd agree to that, if we had talented legislators who were actually legislating.
posted by Archelaus at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2016
posted by Archelaus at 12:45 PM on June 18, 2016
It would be the abrupt end to any pretense of democratic governance.
That's simply not true. Ancient Athens used this mechanism for electing magistrates for governing committees. It's called "sortition". And Athens was one of the most democratic societies the world has ever known.* In fact, election by lot was so associated with democracy that Aristotle wrote:
It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.
Aristotle recognised, correctly, that it is very easy for an oligarchic elite to take over a system of government based on elections. Elections cost money. Therefore the people running a society where the rulers are selected by elections will be rich people.
Putting random people in power and rapidly cycling them like this, at best, would mean that the people who govern us would have to rely on experts who could prevent them from cocking up the genuinely complex tasks involved. Those experts would then naturally form a, hopefully slowly cycling, cabal of kingmakers.
Why is it a bad thing to increase the influence of experts? At the moment, the system favours lobbyists, who are not primarily experts but advocates for a narrow and one-sided view of a particular issue. It's right to be suspicious of anyone who claims to be neutral, but it's dumb to assume that a person who is openly one-sided is any better, and it's dumb to substitute phantom "what-if" fears for dealing with any real downsides in actual policies that exist right here and now.
Lobbyists have tremendous leverage over "democratically" elected legislators - because they can threaten their careers. They just need to say "vote for this law, or you'll never survive the next election". Or "we'll fund your election campaign, if you vote our way when you get in".
A powerful lobbyist already acts as a kingmaker. The situation you fear has long-since come to pass. You are living in a society where lobbyists write your legislation for you and pressure your "representatives" into voting for it by threatening their careers.
Next to that, any advantages gained by experience are next to worthless, because there's no point in being experienced if you have little to no actual power.
Also, I have faith in ordinary people. First, all of recorded history now shows pretty indisputably that no ruling class, anywhere, ever, has been a superior body of people to the people they ruled. Second, if your legislators come from all walks of life, rather than a narrow and self-selecting political elite, you get a broader range of perspectives - more "experience", if you will. Third, we already expect jurors to understand complex situations in some criminal and fraud trials - there's no reason why they couldn't hear competing advocates if they were acting as magistrates or legislators.
* with the usual caveat that in Athens the "people" meant only adult men.
posted by lucien_reeve at 4:53 AM on June 20, 2016
That's simply not true. Ancient Athens used this mechanism for electing magistrates for governing committees. It's called "sortition". And Athens was one of the most democratic societies the world has ever known.* In fact, election by lot was so associated with democracy that Aristotle wrote:
It is accepted as democratic when public offices are allocated by lot; and as oligarchic when they are filled by election.
Aristotle recognised, correctly, that it is very easy for an oligarchic elite to take over a system of government based on elections. Elections cost money. Therefore the people running a society where the rulers are selected by elections will be rich people.
Putting random people in power and rapidly cycling them like this, at best, would mean that the people who govern us would have to rely on experts who could prevent them from cocking up the genuinely complex tasks involved. Those experts would then naturally form a, hopefully slowly cycling, cabal of kingmakers.
Why is it a bad thing to increase the influence of experts? At the moment, the system favours lobbyists, who are not primarily experts but advocates for a narrow and one-sided view of a particular issue. It's right to be suspicious of anyone who claims to be neutral, but it's dumb to assume that a person who is openly one-sided is any better, and it's dumb to substitute phantom "what-if" fears for dealing with any real downsides in actual policies that exist right here and now.
Lobbyists have tremendous leverage over "democratically" elected legislators - because they can threaten their careers. They just need to say "vote for this law, or you'll never survive the next election". Or "we'll fund your election campaign, if you vote our way when you get in".
A powerful lobbyist already acts as a kingmaker. The situation you fear has long-since come to pass. You are living in a society where lobbyists write your legislation for you and pressure your "representatives" into voting for it by threatening their careers.
Next to that, any advantages gained by experience are next to worthless, because there's no point in being experienced if you have little to no actual power.
Also, I have faith in ordinary people. First, all of recorded history now shows pretty indisputably that no ruling class, anywhere, ever, has been a superior body of people to the people they ruled. Second, if your legislators come from all walks of life, rather than a narrow and self-selecting political elite, you get a broader range of perspectives - more "experience", if you will. Third, we already expect jurors to understand complex situations in some criminal and fraud trials - there's no reason why they couldn't hear competing advocates if they were acting as magistrates or legislators.
* with the usual caveat that in Athens the "people" meant only adult men.
posted by lucien_reeve at 4:53 AM on June 20, 2016
« Older It doesn't smell good, but it smells better than... | Australian Election-filter: The ends justify the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- 2012: This American Life’s “Take The Money And Run For Office”
- 2016: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver’s “Congressional Fundraising”
posted by Going To Maine at 5:07 PM on June 16, 2016 [6 favorites]