A Scheme Designed to Enhance the Quality of Those That Serve Us in Federal Politics

(this isn't quite a "proposal" and I wouldn't call this either modest or immodest, hence "scheme")

One of the odd vexations regarding American politics is the seeming contradiction in the constant low rating for Congress as a body, but generally warm regard folks feel towards the representative in their district. I don't think that's something that will ever change, we see all the shenanigans in DC and know that which is being done in our name is often wasteful, venal, and counter to good governance, yet when we look at the representative we elected, we see that our personal Congressperson has done good things and brought home projects that help the community, so we forgive them their sins while damning all those around them.

I say harness this as a force for change. My scheme would require all congressional districts nationwide to be grouped as a series of triads. In each triad, you would not be allowed to elect the representative in your district, but you would elect the representative in two neighboring districts. Voters would no longer have a vested interest in keeping an incumbent in office for decade after decade simply to bring pork home. Instead they would be forced to think about their neighbors' needs along with their own, and consider how their choice for their two neighbors would effect the choices their two neighbors would make for them. Candidates wouldn't be able to run on pork, instead they'd have to run on regional issues as well as the rationality and workability of the ideas they represent. State legislatures, in states with multiple districts, would find the complexity and problems associated with gerrymandering increased exponentially. Hopefully, they'd have little choice but to create districts that make more sense geographically and demographically. States with only one representative would find themselves grouped when prudent, and state boundaries would be respected when possible. Also, reapportionment would have to be modified so that the number of districts was always divisible by three, but that wouldn't be a difficult change to enact.

I don't think voters would be too vindictive in saddling a neighboring district with an unacceptable candidate, as the threat of payback in the next election would loom. It would make it easier to argue against lengthy incumbency, however, and those in Congress would have to consider the greater good for their own district as well as those that actually elected them. The more voters these folks feel beholden to, the better. It can only force them to act and vote in a manner where their record shows clear benefit for all, and not just their home district, or else they won't have an easy campaign the following year.

I'd work the Senate slightly differently, and a little more radically. I think the direct election of Senators has been an unmitigated disaster. Repeal the 17th Amendment (I agree with former Gov. and Sen. Zell Miller on this one), immediately. I have no problem returning to the days when the Senate was elected by each state's legislature. Popularly elected Senators are too powerful, too secure in their position and serve incumbency more than they serve their constituents. So besides repealing the direct election of Senators, the other major change would be a random lottery in which states are paired with each other and the opposite legislature of each pair gets to pick the Senators for their partnered state, selected from a pool of candidates recommended by the state legislature of the state which the Senator would serve (a minimum of three candidates per party, to give the other state's legislature a wider choice in the manner). Just as in the House, this reform would force Senators who want to stay in the Senate to work for all the people, not just their own state, plus changing the pairings on a random basis every 4 years would shake up the process. The particulars could get messy, and occasionally there might be hard feelings between states, but politics is already messy, at least the new mess would be a fun mess. For example, imagine all the ink spilled in anticipation of the Alabama State Legislature getting to choose the representatives for New York, and vice versa. The quaking, shaking, and rabid editorials in the New York media would be a sight to behold and would be worth any problems this scheme might cause.

Unfortunately, there's no political will to enact such a radical, though sensible, change. Some ideas are just too good for the real world.