- So why is compromise so hard in the House? Some commentators, especially liberals, attribute it to what they say is the irrationality of Republican members of Congress.
But the answer could be this instead: individual members of Congress are responding fairly rationally to their incentives. Most members of the House now come from hyperpartisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party. Instead, primary challenges, especially for Republicans, may be the more serious risk.
The system is a major part of the problem, and eliminating gerrymandering is imperative. However, I think another major part of the problem is that many people do not realize it exists. A Republican got re-elected in my district in November even though the district is mostly Democratic (I vote in Ithaca, NY). This happens often in Central New York and presumably elsewhere in the country. This is bad because our House is so partisan. When the House is partisan, we can't afford to vote in any fashion but partisan until the political atmosphere changes. Even if your incumbent congressman is a nice guy, gets your district lots of pork barrel perks, and is personally well-liked, if his party is obstructing actions you would benefit from or pushing for actions that you oppose, you need to vote him out. We need to show congressmen that they have to actually represent our interests and opinions in national policy issues, and we need to show the parties that if they take radical or controversial positions on issues or obstruct progress, we will heartlessly vote them out of the House.
In this environment, members of Congress have little need to build coalitions across voters with different sets of political preferences or values. Few members of Congress today are truly liberal on social issues but conservative on fiscal issues or vice versa.
I thought this paragraph summed up te problem nicely. What's te incentive to be bipartisan if your district is straight up blue or red? Nuance and diversity are good things in this regard. Unless politicians are rewarded for taking risks by breaking the ranks, they won't.
I think we need a constitutional amendment to do away with districts entirely. The federal government's job is to govern the whole country, so why should representation be based on geography? Let everyone vote for whoever they want, and the top 435 vote getters are elected and get a weighted vote based on how many people voted for them.
Would it make a difference if the presidential election was based solely on the popular vote? It seems unfair that a state with 3 million people would have the same weight as a state that has >30 million.
I think it would be great for the presidential election to have a popular vote. However, the much bigger problem is gerrymandering, which is why congress is so polarized. All the congressional districts are drawn in such a way as to ensure that the most seats possible go to whichever party controls the legislature of that state. Currently, the law only says that congressional districts must be contiguous; beyond that, it is up to the most creative dirtbag to decide how ridiculous the lines can be. Here is how the districts look in my neck of the woods. Its undemocratic, as the specific purpose is to ensure the people don't have a voice, and its ruining Congress.
The presidential election has nothing to do with how screwed up congress is.
The divide in america is sickening. We always have potential, but when it's being strangled by partisanship, there might as well be none. I don't care what "party" you belong to, but if your real main focus isn't enriching the future or recovering in the present, you don't get my respect.