CHANGE PARTIES, AND DANCE

Representatives and senators have left Washington to campaign for reelection. President Obama – the one who has said he should act in their stead by executive order if they won’t – used the occasion to criticize them for not staying and doing their jobs.

True, as a body the Congress has done little in the last two years. In some ways that is good for the country; most times the “accomplishments” of Congress do more harm than good. But, the total lack of meaningful legislating is due more to partisanship than anything else. Let the blame fall where it may.

Not a new idea, but certainly not a commonly discussed one, for getting meaningful work out of our national legislators would be to “turn the rascals out.” Set aside for a moment that the voters in the 50 states would need do that, and then both parties would be overturned. The houses of Congress would flip control, but the legislative branch would still be split.

First, stipulate that all 535 seats in the two houses will not flip. But they need not. Good results for the electorate and thus the country would follow if only fractions of a total overturn of the incumbents and so the parties occurred.

In 2010 the midterm elections brought in a slew of new Republicans and changed the House of Representatives from Democratic to Republican. That was grist for the punditry mills for months and months. That change brought a distinct change in the legislative branch’s output. In short, the House passed budget and appropriation bills while the Senate settled for continuing resolutions. The status quo brought increased spending because of built-in up-ticks in expenditures. Republicans could complain and point to their dutifulness; Democrats could smile because the government kept growing. That may be oversimplified, but still true.

What if on Nov. 6 a mere 10 percent of House and Senate incumbents lost? The political chatter would pick up considerably. Reelected and newly elected members of the Congress would take notice. That would be a sizeable turnover historically.

In a 2011 blog article on Sabato’s Crystal Ball (from Prof. Larry L. Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics) columnist Alan I. Abramowitz makes some pertinent points. Never in history have both houses flipped party control, and never in recent history has there been a true anti-incumbent election. Fifty two of the 54 representatives losing their seats in 2010 were Democrats, as were all three losing senators.

A chart with that article indicates that since 1954 the greatest number of the 435 House seats to turn over was fewer than 100.

That means that if a quarter, one in four, of the incumbents in the lower chamber were thrown out by the voters, an historic event would be witnessed. What would be the effect on the 435 representatives and 32 or 33 senators sworn in with the beginning of the 113^th Congress in January 2013?

Wow! They would be very attentive to the wishes of their constituents back home. That would be a change.

And if a third were replaced? Profuse sweat on legislative brows would ensue.

Half? Those wont to feed at the public trough would get the message and start buying lunches themselves. The new influence of the voters would be astounding to politicians and pundits alike.

No more seat-warmers of congressional chairs. Their new occupants would be up on their feet, working to satisfy their citizen-masters.

Okay, so most rascals will still be in place come January. Congress has always been a favorite target of taxpayers, who seem to like the individuals they have elected.

But, just knowing that power does exist at the polls should be of some help.

Would somebody – please -- organize a campaign to make those 535 people in Washington true representatives of the people back home and not 535 egocentric self-servers intent on making elective office careers?

Or, maybe we could each give a little more thought to what we are doing when we cast our secret ballot.

Which is more important, party loyalty or responsible representation?