Posted on | October 13, 2013 | 69 Comments
Everybody loves to hate every other district’s and state’s incumbent Representatives and Senators. I also find it hard to like my own, but ‘Gentleman’ Jim Moran is just his own special snowflake. Seniority matters, and informs just how much pork a politician can bring home. Thus, mounting a primary challenge to an incumbent is voting against local short-term interests, for all purging corruption is certainly a global, long-term Good Thing.
Whattayagonnado? Term limits are a brutally simple, readily verifiable tool for ensuring turnover. At the same time, you’re telling people they can’t vote for that one exceptional politician who, in contrast to the others, isn’t a pus-laden bag of fail.
One parameter that could be massaged to find some middle ground here is the margin of victory. If re-election to a seat took an additional, cumulateive percentage of the vote, say 3%, then politicians could still win re-election, but have to demonstrate worthiness to do so.
Given VA-8 as an example, Jim Moran took 61.0% in 2010. In 2012, he took 64.6%–so far, so far. The proposal here is that, to continue to clutter the U.S. Congress with his debris-like presence, he should require 67.6% of the vote in 2014.
There are any number of variations on this theme:
- the bar starts at 50% with initial electoral victory,
- the accumulation rate/amount,
- only do it for primaries, &c
The real point of this post is that our current quasi-aristocracy needs revisiting.