Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
The late dictator of Turkmenistan, Saparmurat Niyazov (he changed his name to the more swellegant Turkmenbashi, which means "Leader of All Turkmen" after taking office) regularly enjoyed re-election mandates of 101%. Which was nice for him. I mean, if over 100% of the people like you, that's not bad.
We're not all that much better here in the land of the free. Re-election rates for the House of Representative, according to Opensecrets.org, are shamefully high:
If you look closely, you'll see that even in a watershed year like 1994, there was still a 90% re-election rate in the House. In the Senate, the bellweather year was the glorious 1980, when only 55% of those old windbags glided back to DC.
Shouldn't those numbers -- all of them, all of the time -- be closer to 50%? Or lower?
Turkmenbashi, like Senator Byrd of West Virginia, died in office. In Turkmenistan it's darkly hinted that the causes weren't exactly natural. That's clearly not the case with Senator Byrd, who died at 148 years old. On the other hand, when you've got re-elect rates at 90% or above, who's kidding whom? What's the big difference? People who live in safe houses should not thrown stones.
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Uh, Rob?
It's their system. We just get to pay for it.
Now shut up and pay your taxes.
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Rob, I guess it was, "Throw the bums out! No, wait a minute, I like my bum." I knew re-election rates were high, but the 1994 number really surprised me.
One of the dangers in this Internet Age is communicating only with like-mined people and then being surprised when results fly in the face of what "everybody" says. Even with that cautionary note, this year feels different. We'll see.
Aug '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Do two things: Eliminate the franking privelege and eliminate all postal rates other than first class. That would have the glorious effects of increasing congressional turnover (it couldn't hurt), eliminating most junk mail (including political), and hopefully putting the USPS back on a track toward breaking even.
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Pat, I think it's more like, "Thrown the other guy's bum out." But I agree with you -- it feels different this year. And this year, too, it feels like there's a lot more scrutiny on local politics -- towns overpaying employees; state pension funds out of control -- and that's a cheering trend.
May '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
No, I'd bet it's more: "Throw the bum out! Oh, wait. This newcomer's a bum, too! Oh well. Keep the old one, I guess." That and voting fraud.
If statistics like these were widely disseminated on all major media, voter turnout would take a hit.
Aug '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
There is a difference between a candidate winning 90% of the vote and 90% of the same people being re-elected. To claim otherwise is an error of category and is misleading.
In 1994, 34 Republicans defeated Democrat incumbents in the House -- that's about 10% of the body.
Additionally, 20 Freshmen Republicans won open seats that had been held by Democrats -- that's another 6%. These people seem to be left out of your figure above.
A bi-annual turnover rate of 5% every election provides the possibility of political power changing parties every other election. A 5% difference in "margin of electoral victory" for an individual might not constitute any such change.
Should the turnover rate be higher? Possibly. It might inspire greater responsiveness on the part of politicians to their constituents. Of course, this responsiveness might lead to greater retention of incumbents.
The real issue at hand is the size and power of government and the distance of the politician from the electorate, combined with re-election.
Turnover for turnover's sake wouldn't be good. Genuine responsiveness to the community and a smaller government would be a blessing.
Aug '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Turnover for turnover's sake is good to the extent it gums up the works. An inactive federal government is better than an active one. I've often wondered what would happen if a newly elected speaker of the house chose to offer new legislation only in odd years and work to review, revise and repeal current laws in even years...
May '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
I sometimes wonder if our voting system suffers from a failure to account for scale.
Is it reasonable to expect the system that worked for this nation, with a population of roughly 2.5 million, to work for this nation, with a population of roughly 310 million? That's like pretending elections of the mayor of China, Texas and the mayor of Houston can operate in basically the same way. In small towns, everyone knows everyone. In Houston, maybe one or two percent of voters will ever meet the mayor.
The electoral college for presidential elections is a clever system that is somewhat immune to scale. Whether the U.S. population is one hundred or one hundred million, there is at least a reasonable expectation that the electors of an electoral college can actually spend time around and come to know the presidential candidates.
No such system exists for Congressmen and Senators. The vast majority of voters are utterly reliant on media and politicians' own words while attempting to judge candidates. We vote for strangers.
Is there a viable alternative?
Edited on Aug 20, 2010 at 2:18pmRe: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Nathaniel Wright: Should the turnover rate be higher? Possibly. It might inspire greater responsiveness on the part of politicians to their constituents. Of course, this responsiveness might lead to greater retention of incumbents.
The real issue at hand is the size and power of government and the distance of the politician from the electorate, combined with re-election.
Turnover for turnover's sake wouldn't be good. Genuine responsiveness to the community and a smaller government would be a blessing. · Aug 20 at 1:56pm
Agree, Nathaniel (although gumming up the works ain't bad as side effects go). As for low turnover rates generally, I have but one word for us all: gerrymandering. Both parties have an incentive to let the other side gerrymander, I'm sorry to say. It makes for quite a tough system to crack.
Aug '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
@Aaron Miller -- one could always increase the size of the House of Representatives until the constituencies returned to their 179x levels. There is no reason that a Representative should have 750k constituents, with the possible exception of desiring a smaller House and a larger Bureaucracy.
May '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Actually, Nathaniel, I was thinking more along the lines of adding further tiers of power between the ones we already have, and in combination with some sort of electoral college system. This would keep the House and Senate at reasonable sizes, so genuine conversation and awareness of one's fellow politicians' concerns is possible. In other words, let citizens vote for people they can actually know, then let those elected officials vote for the people they know, and so on up the line.
Such a system would dissolve our direct influence over national officials, but I think one could generally trust a wise and honest person to elect another wise and honest person. I'm far from certain, however.
Jul '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
The problem is the size of the government. The more they raise taxes, the more they send back home for monuments to themselves, the more votes they get. "Seniority."
If the government was the size as originally envisioned, most Americans wouldn't care who got elected. They would be busy working, creating, creating wealth at an ever astonishing pace.
Jul '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
I may need to offer a bit of dissent. In a democracy, the only reason to cast aspersion on the people's choices (i.e. re-electing the same old bums) is if you believe the people are somehow being deceived or coerced. If I like my representative, why shouldn't I re-elect him? Why is that a "problem"? Who are you to bemoan my choices? Sounds like liberal elite second-guessing to me.
It is of a piece with the "voter turnout" myth. I read low voter turnout as a vote of confidence, not a disaster.
That said, the one point I agree with from the above is that none of this would matter in a properly limited government.
May '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
I believe any group with power (government, organization, committee, corporation, etc) is naturally inclined, in relation to its power and duration, to become increasingly self-serving. Term limits help to deter corruption by discouraging members from identifying themselves primarily as members of the group (politicians), rather than identifying mainly with the origins that inspired them to seek election.
If one gets used to solving problems for people, there's a natural temptation to respond to requests for intervention with "How can I do it?" instead of "Should I?". Term limits seem a reasonable safeguard against human nature, though they are a tradeoff.
Jul '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
And just think what the Recidivism Rate will be with 6 for 1 minority voting coming to a precienct near you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHbdc8Q_3Ek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ist25T_Opqo&feature=related
Edited on Aug 21, 2010 at 11:36amMay '10
Re: Almost Turkmenistan: The US Re-Election Rates are a Disgrace
Well, Rob, perhaps you could be a little more understanding the next time some interchangeable State Department hack apologizes to the Chinese for the flaws in our democracy, or President Obama plays moral equivalence games with some autocratic thug. Maybe they have a point. Maybe they are as concerned as you are. After all, while we just flap our jaws here on Ricochet, our President is out there every day, deploying his legendary political skills to drive those re-elect rates down to record lows, particularly in the House of Representatives.
Change You Can Believe In!