The Economist overstates its case somewhat by ignoring independent or non-affiliated voters.
Term limits likely is the best practicable answer.
You're welcome!
The Economist overstates its case somewhat by ignoring independent or non-affiliated voters.
Quite so. They present the sides fairly, but they do oversimplify.
Term limits likely is the best practicable answer
No. Term limits are unconstitutional, in my opinion. They limit the choice of the voter. If I want to re-elect my congressman 50 times, I'll do that. What's bad is the built in franking privilege and fund raising advantage the incumbents have. I'd rather publish their voting records and their contributors, linked to the appropriate issues. I'd also like to ban lobbyists from the Congressional halls. Let them meet on their own time, not on our public servants' work time!
As hard as it is to believe, our corrupt politicians are intentially re-elected by their constituents. Many people just vote on name recognition, without any other thought. Hence the 90% re-election statistic.