[untenured]

I have for some time thought that the overwhelming rate at which incumbents are re-elected is one of the most important political problems facing our country. I know that it is a big problem at the federal level, and I have heard that it is a big problem at the state level as well.

Politicians disconnected from electoral competition are more prone to grab freedom from the citizenry, and to otherwise be unresponsive. Along with federalism, the separation of powers and other features of our constitutional design, competitive elections are one of the bulwarks of our freedoms.

This was written before the 2002 elections, but nothing that happened there meaningfully changed the problem as far as I can see. It was also written before McCain-Feingold, which will undoubtedly make the problem worse

This is only an excerpt of a paper that touches on other topics, and I have deleted the footnotes. They are available at the source.

I would be interested to know what Freepers think about the importance of the problem and about some feasible solutions.

[Support Free Republic]

	How come EVERYBODY is picking on ME? Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC Help Keep "the Duck" out of the White house!

[untenured]

One of you guys once agreed that this is a major problem, so I'd be interested in your thoughts. I unfortunately can't remember which one, so my apologies for pinging the other one unnecessarily.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I would be interested to know what Freepers think about the importance of the problem and about some feasible solutions."

And the anser is----------TERM LIMITS!!!!

TERM LIMITS fixes ALL of the problems. It should be applied to ALL levels of government and to EVERY elective or non-civil service appointive office.

[Burkeman1]

The factors contributing to this Soviet style success rate among incumbent politicians illustrate the political advantages conferred by public subsidy.

Under the rhetorical guise of warding off unspecified corruption, incumbents are happy to limit themselves to $1,000 (or even $2,000, as of November 6, 2002) contributions. Certainly, they may detest the phone calls they have to make and the fundraising breakfasts, lunches, and dinners they have to attend. But at night the incumbents sleep well knowing that their challengers back home must do the same (more, if the challengers are serious about winning) without, in most cases, a comparable network of contacts, donors, and lobbyists whose long-standing collective investment in the incumbents’ careers ensures continuing financial commitment. Incumbent politicians raise, on average, more than twice the amount of campaign contributions that their challengers do. For example, political action committees contribute nearly eight times more money to incumbents than to challengers.

Thus our tempest in a teapot political "debates" and phoney "controversies" over minutia or as the icon of beltway phoneyconism, George Will, puts it- "modalities" of big government.

With each new CFR bill the incumbents have further entrenched themselves and the scope of permissible "debate" over the "issues" has reached comically narrow proportions.

We are sliding into a plutocracy rather fast.