Thats more than 35 years. ISnt there something wrong here?

List of United States Congressmen by longevity of service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

It is really weird that in a system where people vote for individuals and not for lists (like in many parliamentary systems, where many MP's don't get elected because they get many votes but because they are high enough on the list made by their party/coalition) it seems a lot harder to change anything in the governement. If you look at the congressionals seats the parties in the USA had over a longer period of time it shows that, compared to many other countries, it is a very static non-volatile situation.

I've said before that the USA could learn something from the way that for example the German/Spanish/Italian/European governements are controlled (I think what we have in the Netherlands is good too but for a large diverse country like the USA you need some sort of electoral devision into geographical districs like you see in the elections of the governements I mentioned). You could also learn something from how the French elect their President but that's a slightly different discussion.

I have not really been able to put a finger on the exact cause of the large staticness in US politics, but I strongly suspect that it has something to do with the fact that it is nearly impossible for a small party to get representation, while in many parliamentary systems multiple small parties get representatives and are always nibbling away support from the larger parties and bringing new topics to the agenda.

On first glance it looks like the system in the USA gives the people great control over the individual politicians, but examine it further and it appears that voters don't have much choice in the elections and huge groups of voters are not represented and for those 2 reasons many people don't even bother to vote. I think it is a flawed system.

__________________
Terrornoia: how the propa-ugandists used the omni-territorialization of terror for the fundamen-talismanization of criminal law in a multi-cultus-ritualistic society

But why even keep relecting the same person? People complain about congress and then keep putting the same people back in. Obviously the dumb masses dont know what they are doing.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Because the US system is the first shot at a Democratic Republic since Greece, they didn't have many examples to draw on, and they envisioned a one party state, where the actual politics took place on a party level, and then that party ruled the country.
But the US system has natural advantages for a two party system, third parties do crop up, but the winner take all system makes them relatively short lived.
It's the political ecosystem created by the US Constitution that favors two parties and entrenched congressmen.

You keep electing the same person for a very logical reason, because he reflects your political views. Take the example of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.

The GOP puts up a candidate every six years, but why would the people of Massachusetts, who favor enlightened Liberal government, vote for the GOP's candidate, who opposes their deepest held convictions?

In Kennedy's last election, he got 75% of the vote, the Libertarian got 12% and the Republican got 13%.
We elect him because we agree with him, we wouldn't vote for someone who we don't agree with, just for the sake of change.
When he is not longer running, we will elect someone different, but not a Republican, I can guarantee you that, and we will elect someone who is a Liberal and in line with the electorate, and they will be opposed by conservative candidates, who will lose for decades to come, because it's what the people want.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

It's a system originated by the single-issue, thus two sided contest of enacting the Constitution. As such, it does lend itself to a two-party system, but it is not inherently limited to being one. From that point, the ruling parties have tried their best to make sure it Stays a two-party system because hey, having half, even if it's a short half, of the pork and kickbacks and such is better than some smaller share!

If you're lucky, but more likely, you vote for him initially because (s)he's the lesser of the two evils you're allowed to select from. After that, the rules are set up to reward recidivism, un, I mean incumbancy - Positions of power are assigned based first on party and second on seniority, so any constituancy that kicks out an incumbant is punished, and if they have the audacity to elect somebody not from the two ruling parties, the rules are written to make sure they're Really screwed.


Worse, it's a conglomeration of flawed systems, as for the most part each state writes their own election laws, thus making it even more confusing for any outsiders to try to affect the system.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian