The Need for Reforming Congress
The method of representation in Congress has sparked a controversy over how effective the mechanism is at achieving effective representation. One group of Americans assumes that Congress is in the right direction, and another group believes the same. As a result, they agree that a variety of changes can be introduced in order to straighten up the structure and appease the majority, if not all, people. While Congress is generally on the right track when it comes to the interests of the American people, there are moments when it loses touch and takes decisions that seem selfish. There is, therefore, the need to address the flaws in our system to ensure it is one of the best, if not the best in the world.
The Flaws in Representation
In the illustration of how the Congress fails to reflect the values of representation, a focus can be laid on the Republicans who turn out to be conservation even in their decisions (Kingdon 23). This is opposed to their Democratic counterparts who are more liberal and with decisions that are likely to reflect the needs of the majority. The desires and the needs of the public are not fully met given that each member of the house can occupy a seat for two terms. As a result of this, the first term has things done in the proper way which is tailored to optimally meet the needs of the constituents. The second term is characterized with members acting more like delegates as they begin to distant themselves from the public, obviously because there is no third term. An in-depth look at the two parts of the Congress reveals that the House of Representatives is much better when it comes to portraying the best picture of representation.
The Balancing Act of Congress
Although the Congress is not perfect, a look at the tasks they execute reveals that it is worth being regarded as representative. Members of the Congress have to ensure they balance matters of the party, the constituency and the nation as a whole. In most of the cases, the interests at these levels seem to vary and they are forced to strike a compromise. To illustrate a tricky situation where members have to go against the will of the subjects, we can consider a situation where the citizens are forcing a representative to push for military spending. While this issue is worth considering so that the tax can go to other areas, their representative can choose to opt otherwise due to other forms of pressure. This base could be a source of income to many in the area being represented, and a cut of expenditure would mean workers losing their job. In such a case, a congressman will be forced to protect the interests of the employees and forget about the pressure coming from the taxpayers.
Challenges to Effective Representation
Besides, the Congress can fail to be representative as a result of the need to dance to the tunes of campaign funders. However, this has been significantly reduced through the funding coming from the AARP. The formation of PAC's has reduced the influence that the individual donors and large corporations had on the decisions made which mostly favored them other than the electorates. The influence of these external funders makes the peoples' representatives go against the principles of representation rendering the idea to be moot. In as far as there is the need to praise the congressmen on the work done in airing the voices of the electorate, it is paramount to look for ways in which the representation can be strengthened before losing its meaning.
Evaluating and Improving Representation
Before reforming the Congress and coming with the necessary measures to improve the representation, it is essential to access this representation. Constituents should frequently evaluate the representatives. It is important for the constituent to gauge how consistent their representatives reflect their interests. At this point, the question of whether the representative should act as delegates or trustees should be raised. If one has to go with the requirements of James Madison's Federalist Paper no. 10, emphasis should be on trustees instead of delegates (Madison 1787-1788). Should the representatives start behaving like trustees while the constituents want a delegate, need, therefore, arises to elect another leader.
Necessary Changes for Better Representation
Reforming the Congress to reflect the needs of all citizens with varying views is not an easy. It is worth noting that the founders of the system designed the elections in a manner that maximizes the possibilities of the majority ruling. Besides, they ensured that different geographic regions have a representative in the lawmaking bodies. However, there are some changes that need to be brought in to make the system more efficient and reliable. The single-member pluralities are thought to be suppressing minor parties in the elections (Bawn & Michael 12-17). This design should be, however, changed to address the problem. Voting for third parties is an act that puts the interests of the constituents at risk. There is a high chance of supporting a loser and, therefore, necessary to discourage this form of representation. There is the need to adopt better ways of guaranteeing an accurate form of representation. A good method to adopt here would be the proportionate representation. This method will be effective in getting rid of gerrymandering and ensure the voters' viewpoints are accurately represented. The proportionate representation will also ensure that multiple seats are allocated to districts that are large instead of the one seat that is assigned regardless of the size. Failure to change the ways in which the congressional seats are apportioned will force the citizens to compromise with the manner in which the representation is offered by the major parties.
Adopting Successful Measures
Other changes to be implemented can be borrowed from countries like Britain after being fine-tuned to fit in the American context. In Britain, there are legal equalities for all candidates despite the party affiliation (Dahl 12). All candidates are guaranteed to get two mailings that are free to all voters, besides getting equal allotted time for TV and Radio. These are factors that the American system should consider in pushing for the equality of all candidates and guaranteeing fairness. The Supreme Court is at times erratic when it comes the decisions regarding the ballot access laws' constitutionality. The court in some cases upholds the restrictive requirements' challenges while in other cases, the decisions are ignored. A need, therefore, arises to guarantee consistency so that the people can have confidence in their highest judicial body.
The Influence of Citizens on Representative Elections
One might question whether the citizens have enough power to elect the representatives. This question is valid because there are instances where the re-elections prove that the people are powerless. To prove this, a focus can be put on a survey that was released by the Gallup organization which showed a high level of dissatisfaction with Congress by the electorate (Jacobson 12-15). This would mean that the majority of the elected leaders would not secure their seats. The survey reported approximately 90% of the American citizens were not satisfied with the manner in which the Congress was handling its job. From these statistics, it was expected that the majority of these representatives would lose their jobs. However, this was not the case as more than 90% of those who ran for the elections got a victory. This raises the concern on whether the citizens have what it takes to make the right choices and stand with them.
The Role of Incumbency and Primaries
Even if the citizens may claim to elect these people, the statistics from the Gallup organization show there is another force. From this point of view, it can be said that the job security of the congressional job is based on the ignorance of the voters and partisanship. Incumbents sway the decisions of the voters despite their prior stands using more money and hence a strong campaign compared to their rivals. Citizens ought to know the importance of the primaries so that better candidates go through the stage; otherwise, they will have to put up with the bad leaders. It is only through the encouragement of the primaries competition that citizens can claim to have a choice. This is despite the limitation and the more emphasis laid on the two leaders (from the two big parties) because the primaries will have left out the best congressional aspirants.
Overcoming Financial Influence
Voters might also feel that the candidates are different from them in the manner that they carry out their duties. However, the truth is that they are not special in any way. The only difference which is prevalent is on the basis of wealth. There is a tendency of leaders coming from a given rich family although the final decision is normally at the hand of the voters. Besides, these wealthy leaders tend to serve their interests more through the protection of their wealth instead of serving the needs of those being represented. Other than these differences, the leaders are just like the voters, and anybody who has a good agenda for the people is worth being considered regardless of the background.
Achieving Fairness and Independence
Leveling the playing field is achievable although it is a difficult task to accomplish. Whenever one wants to run for the political seats, financing the campaign is crucial and can ultimately dictate the loss or the success of a candidate. From this standpoint, one can argue that money is one of the factors that are greatly undermining the American values of democracy. Campaign finance laws seem to overlook the special interests which are dominating the political funding. If a candidate forgoes this corporate funding and opts to stick to the policies and the manifesto, voters should consider the situation and be assured that it is a way of guaranteeing non-interference from possible corporate funders. This goes further to achieve the freedom of thought which cannot be alienated because the achievements made were purely independent. Instead of seeking the corporate funding, candidates who cannot fund their campaigns should be seeking public funding.
Works Cited
Bawn, Kathleen, and Michael F. Thies. "A comparative theory of electoral incentives representing the unorganized under PR, plurality and mixed-member electoral systems." Journal of Theoretical Politics 15.1 (2003): 12-17.
Dahl, Robert Alan. On political equality. Yale University Press, 2006:12.
Jacobson, Gary C. "How the economy and partisanship shaped the 2012 presidential and congressional elections." Political Science Quarterly 128.1 (2013): 12-15.
Kingdon, John W. Congressmen's voting decisions. University of Michigan Press, 1989.
Madison, James. "The federalist no. 10." November 22.1787 (1787): 1787-88.
