Congressional Seniority

[billroper]

I'm sure that many people have made this observation, but it struck me this morning that the biggest problem with the Congressional seniority system as used to determine committee assignments and chairmanships is that the most extreme members of each party end up controlling the show. In order to accumulate seniority, you need to be around for a while and the best way to be around for a while is to be from a "safe" district (or state, in the case of the Senate). And those are the seats that tend to have the most partisan representatives.

Not a good thing, I'd think, if you're anywhere near the center of the political spectrum.

Comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

At this point, I'd be happy if the people on science-based committees actually believed in science (http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_political/7222987.html).

[blaurentnv.livejournal.com]

A popular alternative is to implement term limits - this means that anyone who knows what they are doing is automatically fired. Judging by how California's legislature has worked pre-term limits compared to post-term limits, I think it's clear that the seniority system is the better of these two options.

There are, of course, other options, but I'm not familiar with any state that has tried that. Congress, of course, depends heavily on seniority.

[madfilkentist]

I look at it from a different perspective. The ones who keep getting elected have spent the most time living in a bubble world, where their input is from lobbyists and government officials, and this diminishes their understanding of how the real world works. They're also the most adept at deal-making to buy votes.

I don't think they're predominantly the most extreme members, in the sense of having a strong set of ideas. People like that tend to get removed from office when their ideas go out of fashion. If they're really "extreme" in their beliefs, they'll stand by them even if it costs them votes. Rather, seniority goes to the ones who'll adapt themselves to each trend that comes along. A good example would be the ones who hated intrusion on privacy when Clinton was pushing the Clipper Chip, but now claim all kinds of intrusions are necessary to keep us safe. They'll yell loudly for the most ridiculous causes, but they don't particularly believe in them. What they believe in is getting re-elected.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The ones who keep getting elected have spent the most time living in a bubble world, where their input is from lobbyists and government officials, and this diminishes their understanding of how the real world works. They're also the most adept at deal-making to buy votes.

Maybe so.

They're also the only ones with actual experience trying to write legislation that does what the legislators intended, rather than being twisted by big money's clever lawyers.

The lawyers have *lots* of experience. Probably a good idea that their opponents in this one-sided game at least have some experience of their own.

[billroper]

My impression is that legislators never write legislation. That's done by their staff.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Surely legislators still decide what is well written enough to propose and vote for, and what has to go back for rewrites because it is unclear or might be twisted to cause harm?

Otherwise, maybe we should be electing the staff(s).

[billroper]

Honestly, I really don't think so. God knows that they didn't think various provisions of the health care bill through. They certainly didn't read it. :) (I mean, certainly, if you read the comments of various legislators in the press.)

But here's an interview with a Democratic member talking about the subject. It appears to be a right-wing news site, but the full text of the interview is posted. I'd believe that if he were inaccurately quoted in that full text, there'd have been consequences.

Here's Senator Max Baucus quoted on the same subject.

And here are a bunch of lawyers discussing the subject on The Volokh Conspiracy.

[madfilkentist]

And what is it the legislators intend?

There's a perception, maybe more common than I realize, that members of legislative bodies and the special-interest lobbyists all around them are in conflict. That the lobbyists are fiendishly aiming for free markets, while the legislators try to thwart them with government control.

The fact is, the lobbyists of big interests and the legislators work hand in hand. The legislators create laws which benefit their supporters, and pass them off as "public interest" legislation. The supporters make sure they get the positive publicity and money that will keep them in office. The more experienced the legislators are, the better they are at playing this game.

Notice that out of "health care reform" last year, we have a legal requirement that people do business with insurance companies, whether they want to or not. You may even have persuaded yourself that this benefits you. From the same legislation we have a legal requirement that more tiny little business transactions than ever be reported to the government. This is an action against "big money," of course -- according to the standard propaganda. What it actually will do is drive more small businesses and nonprofits into giving up, since they can't keep up with the paperwork. This works to the benefit of the large, government-connected businesses.

Keep believing that the people running your life and taking your money are your friends, and that all they need is more experience in fighting the lobbyists they have lunch with every day. It's a pleasant delusion.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Notice that out of "health care reform" last year, we have a legal requirement that people do business with insurance companies, whether they want to or not.

Here is a quick rundown on why that is necessary.

(eyeroll) I am well aware that some politicians are crooked. That is part of why I am a member of the League of Women Voters. But requiring people to purchase health insurance is not part of that.

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

Like some of the others, I don't see that being around a long time is really the same as being the most partisan. The locked in district has been with us a very long time, but it's only been the last few cycles where the vitriol and extreme partisanship has come in. Tip O'Neil used to talk about how they could argue on the floor and then go out for drinks. That's not the case anymore.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The locked in district has been with us a very long time, but it's only been the last few cycles where the vitriol and extreme partisanship has come in

Yes. This.

[billroper]

My impression is that "extreme partisanship" started back in 1994 when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate. (Not counting the extreme partisanship that we saw in the 19th century.)

It's easy to go out for drinks with the minority when the minority has been out of power forever and has to get along with you to get anything at all passed, because they know they're going to be in the minority forever. Once the control of the legislature starts being at stake, partisanship becomes a lot more likely.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

It is my perception that extreme partisanship started with the Republicans, yes. And is (in my opinion) particularly virulent precisely in times of change when more Congressional seats are in play, which would kind of argue against the "locked in districts create extreme partisanship" theory.

It is furthermore my perception that to this day the Democrats keep trying to compromise, diluting the good they could do and selling out those of us who believe in tolerance, civil liberties, and the growth of the middle class in the process.

For example the public option got thrown under the bus in a time-wasting attempt to persuade even one Republican to vote for heath care reform by diluting it. In the process a major check on the prices charged by insurance companies trickled away. I hope the free market will keep prices under control, but since the government swung wayyyy to the right, it is very rare for price-fixing to actually be prosecuted, so I dunno.

[billroper]

You are agreeing with something that I didn't quite say.

I believe that the partisanship became stronger when the Republicans took over the House and the Senate in 1994. However, I don't actually blame either side for it particularly -- I think it's more a simple structural result of a shift in power that gave power to people who hadn't had it before and took power from people who hadn't expected to lose it.

Once the question of power and control was in play, increased partisanship was the most likely result.

[rono-60103.livejournal.com]

Yet another reason I'd love to see some (or all) states implement a districting system that is 90% - 100% algorithm driven. In other words, take the politicians humans out of the equation as much as possible and use the detailed census data to create districts of equal population and as geographically contingent as possible.

Now this wouldn't eliminate completely "safe" districts, but it would prevent the situation we have now in (AFAIK) all 50 states where there is at least some pressure to keep the districts represented by certain patrons safe for that patron, or at least their think-a-likes.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Iowa has such a system, at least for the U.S. House seats; they're all somewhat competitive in most election cycles.

[billroper]

I'm in favor of that sort of plan too. I understand that California and Florida have recently taken redistricting out of the hands of the politicians -- it will be interesting to see the results.

[blaurentnv.livejournal.com]

It will be very interesting to see what happens. The rules for being on the redistricting commission pretty much prevent anyone who understands what redistricting is about to be on the commission. We're mostly expecting something to come out of the commission that violates federal laws, resulting in the courts doing the redistricting (which has happened several times in my life, possibly more often than the legislature has had a redistricting plan that passed muster).

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

The "centrists" in Congress aren't anywhere near the center of the political spectrum.

[pheltzer.livejournal.com]

Of course you could look at Illinois which many people would consider a safe Democrat seat, and our Junior Senator is now a Republican, and thanks to the idiocy performed by Blago, he's going to have about 2 months of seniority over the rest of the incoming Senators. And you know that will get thrown around if/when he's in line for a committee membership.

[billroper]

Safe seats generally become unsafe when the minority party nominates the only candidate who could possibly win and the majority party nominates the only candidate who could possibly lose. If the Democrats had nominated David Hoffman, I suspect that he'd be taking office shortly.

I could be wrong, of course. That's the wonderful thing about hypotheticals -- they're really hard to prove or disprove. :)

[gorgeousgary]

Depends on the committee. I would certainly not be surprised if your observation is true for the "big ticket" committees (e.g. Judiciary, Appropriations) that cover the hottest issues and/or have the most investigative power.

But there are committees it's less true of. For example, I've been reading about John Mica who's likely to take over Transportation. Now, clearly he has a different approach than the outgoing Oberstar; Mica's a lot more in favor of getting private industry involved in funding projects. And I certainly don't necessarily agree with all of Mica's proposed approaches. But in the articles I've read, he's at least come off as reasonable in advocating for his points. Which I can't say about many of his likely fellow incoming chairmen.