[tayo42]

Fix some of the ambiguities that allowed power to be concentrated in the executive branch. Automatically start elected officials so things like avoiding swearing in don't happen. Limit the power of these executive orders. Introduce recall votes. Switch to public funding for all elections.

Theres plenty we can do. That's off the top if my head. I'm sure if smart people sat down to think about it there are lots of practical and clever ideas.

The majority didn't ask for this. 49% of voters did.

[ReptileMan]

Or hear me out - the congress should start doing their job. The main problem is the congress has been MIA for decades and outsources their power to the executive via regulatory bodies. And probably a good idea for SCOTUS to return some power to the states. There is too much power concentrated in washington, the congress refuses to yield it and the result is imperial presidency. Which is exalting when the president is from your faction and depressing when it is not.

[tayo42]

I agree, I think recall votes, term limits, higher pay, fixing election funding would help with that.

We need changes that address the kind of people that are running for these spots and winning then go on to do a bad job. Congress isn't incentived to be effective.

[cyberax]

The main problem is that Congress is not competitive. If you live somewhere outside of a few remaining swing areas, you can just skip voting entirely.

We need to do something to fix this: gerrymandering ban, increase the number of Reps, add more states for more Senate seats, etc.

[anthonypasq]

sorry, but that is not it, unless you think politicians are fungible within parties. The problem is that there is no real feedback mechanism between a what a congress person votes for and their electibility (within or across parties) because of money in politics.

how is it possible that congress has consistent single digit approval ratings and they vote for things 90% of their constituents disagree with and still get elected? This is the core problem of American politics. Politicians are beholden to donors not voters.

[cyberax]

The local options for uncompetitive districts? They are fungible, except maybe minor differences on some pet issues.

They don't have to care about actually representing anyone. They can skip town halls, ignore requests, etc. Primaries are a very weak form of influence.

If you want numbers, reps in competitive districts hold more town hall meetings. And they also hold more personal staff (limited back in 1975) in their home states. This is kinda a no-brainer. If you have to care about re-elections, you'll try to help your local consituents.

[lesuorac]

> The problem is that there is no real feedback mechanism between a what a congress person votes for and their electibility

You would describe this as being different from competitive?

I doubt any amount of money would matter if we had 1 representative per 30k people as written in the constitution, NY State is about 20 M people so you'd need to bribe ~300 of the ~600 representatives in order to get your way (and also do that for every other state).

[anthonypasq]

yes, is there any evidence purple districts represent their constituents better? whats the different between being primaried in a 90% red district and running against someone of a different party in a swing district?

[lordnacho]

Congress is largely the wrong people though. What sane person would build a system where getting elected requires you to be rich? Where a primary system ensures everyone elected is not roughly in the center of opinions?

[mrtesthah]

>>Switch to public funding for all elections.

>Or hear me out - the congress should start doing their job.

Well, we make them do their job by holding them accountable to the people rather than a billionaire donor class. Citizens United is at the root of all this.

[ReptileMan]

they are not accountable to anyone right now because they flat out refuse to pass any legislation.

[DangitBobby]

Which benefits those who benefit from the status quo who happen to be...?