The problem with Congress explained

[MoonRiver]

?1618418228

[dmr]

1. Good graph

Who's the source?

[MoonRiver]

3. Not sure. I took it from another site.

[Probatim]

2. What do these pie charts look like when you split out the parties?

[MoonRiver]

4. That would be interesting!

[DENVERPOPS]

24. AND split out

the millionaires in just the Senate, which would be far more interesting than together with both house members and senate members.

[PatSeg]

32. Oh yes, that is an excellent point

I'm quite sure it would be even more lopsided.

[DENVERPOPS]

34. But

there are a bunch of Dem Senators also.......

I also would like to see a chart of how much their net worth was when they entered office, and what it is now....
THAT would be really revealing............The best government money can buy.........

LOL exactly what that frenchman said in the 1700's: "Democracy will work until people realize they can vote themselves money.."

[3catwoman3]

5. That would be very interesting indeed. I want to see...

...the pie chart for Republican millionaires in congress versus Republican millionaires in not in congress.

[progressoid]

12. Women: 17 Democrats, 8 Rep in the Senate. 88 Dems and 13 Rep in the House

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2020

I'm sure the rest is out there. I gotta get back to work.

[wiggs]

14. gop or gop-leaning: 40% of US. GOP senators: 50%. nt

[Blue Owl]

6. Congress ain't representin'

[Dustlawyer]

13. True! Not on this is chart but the biggest problem in Congress is campaign finance (bribes).

Gun reform did not happen after Sandy Hook despite over 90% approval rating with American citizens. The reason was the Donors and their $$$.

[emulatorloo]

7. Doesn't need a chart. Just one word: REPUBLICANS

[politruk]

8. One solution would be what is called "sortition" or "demarchy,"

that is, fill Congressional seats by random lottery, like jury duty. Then Congress would look like the general population in every way. Only, then we wouldn't have a Congress, we would have a focus group, qualified to do nothing but vote up-or-down on executive-branch proposals.

[Probatim]

9. Imagine 100 MTGs in the Senate - that's nightmare fuel.

[Gregory Peccary]

19. Yep, the George Carlin principal applies here...

Think about how stupid the average American is, then realize half of the population is even dumber than that.

[erronis]

20. Or 100 entitled white men. That's the current nightmare.

Well, a few exceptions just to show there can be exceptions.

[BobTheSubgenius]

23. Even 10% MTGs would be a nightmare.

She and her views need to be refudiated as soon as possible.

[yellowdogintexas]

26. so following that, you would essentially have a whole new House every 2 years

theoretically no one would have ever served before. and that would be utter chaos because no one would know how to do anything. Add to that 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years, with no experience.

The example of a Congress full of Louie Gohmerts or MTG types is horrifying.

[markie]

10. biggest problem... Senate

2 votes no matter the population

[SergeStorms]

17. Yeah...

our forefathers thought that was equitable representation.

[erronis]

21. That was the only way to get some of the smaller states to join the USA.

(Coming from that wedge of a state in your avatar...)

[Moostache]

11. 4 words are all you need

Rich

Old

White

Men


The thing I do not understand about them is this - they are all going to die far sooner than the consequences of their actions and inactions...surely some of them must care about legacies and the future? At least a few? History will judge them all exceedingly harshly and the family names of those clinging to power now will be forbidden from polite society by 2100.

The ultimate vanity and myopia combined.

[robbob]

15. That's not a graph, it's a pie chart.

And it’s not ONE pie chart it’s four. Hate to nit-pick, but come on! 😂

[bucolic_frolic]

16. The system was set up for, and by, men of propertied classes

independent of churches, Royalty, and pledged to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which mean consumption in those days.

But back then, people owned businesses. The idea of corporations wasn't fully known beyond limited liability for shareholders of exploration companies - Dutch East India, Hudson's Bay, etc. They subdued and killed many native Americans, and plundered the land and forests for resources and made themselves and shareholders, and the crowns rich.

Which is my windy way of saying I blame the corporations. Too much power, greed, money, too many wannabe's trying to climb to the top.

[SergeStorms]

18. I'd like to know...

how many of the Congressional millionaires became millionaires while in office?

[erronis]

22. And where did their big wealth come from? It wasn't on the federal payroll.

I'm sure most of them have received multi-millions on "speaking engagements". Basically a nice dinner where you (Sen. McFillibuster) just needs to drone on for 15 minutes and get the funds deposited in some non-affiliated account. To pad the unreported earnings you get from overseas interests. Not saying that some of that isn't inserted into accounts by Vlad-The-Impaler.

[Ferrets are Cool]

25. It could be changed if we weren't so dumb

Those graph numbers are caused by US.

And the fact that there isn't a cap on how much a candidate can spend to get elected.

[Zeitghost]

27. One part of the solution

is to increase the number of Representatives in the House. Currently each Rep. serves ~750,000, increasing Congress by 10X or even better, 25X could drop that number to 1 Rep per 30,000. Then, at least one house of Congress would truly represent the people and they could be held responsible by their neighbors. You don't need a huge budget to campaign around your small town or neighborhood.

[Tommymac]

29. Agree the HOR should be expanded...

but too many and it becomes totally unworkable - we'd have the same problem coming to a clear consensus as in the Senate due to too many committees and just the shear numbers needed.

I thin that if every House Seat represented between 200,000 and 250,000 it may be workable. I'd go as high as 500,000 to start with to see how that worked.

But it will not happen soon, in any case.

What really needs to happen is the Constitution needs to be overhauled in so many ways for the 21st Century way of life - but that is a scary thought in these uncertain times of Former Idiocy.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. Wow, wow, wow.

There it is.

[liberalla]

30. That's a keeper! Thanks!

[Demsrule86]

31. I don't find the graph offers a good explanation as it is an attack

on the entire Congress ...The Republicans are to blame for what is wrong with Congress. They refuse to do anything useful. This sort of graph lumps the parties together and gives the Republicans a pass...'the they all do it' sort of thing. So I actually think this is meaningless in terms of the real problem with Congress. And FDR one of the richest men to ever serve as president passed progressive policy we still have today...wealth alone is not a 'problem'. It can be depending on the person but not always.

[LudwigPastorius]

33. The number of women in Congress is only slightly better than that meme indicates.

It's 27%, according to Pew Research.

The number of women in Congress is at an all-time high. About a century after Republican Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman elected to Congress, there are 144 women in the national legislature, accounting for a record 27% of all members across both chambers. (This includes six nonvoting House members who represent the District of Columbia and U.S. territories, four of whom are women.)

A record 120 women are currently serving in the House, accounting for 27% of the chamber’s total. There are 24 women in the Senate, one fewer than the record number of seats they held in the last Congress. In four states – Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire and Washington – both senators are women, down from six states in the previous Senate.

The House has seen slow but steady growth in the number of women members since the 1920s. Growth in the Senate has been slower: The Senate did not have more than three women serving at any point until the 102nd Congress, which began in 1991. And the share of women in Congress remains far below their share in the country as a whole (27% vs. 51%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/03/10/the-changing-face-of-congress/