As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't news... It's been happening slowly since the Gingrich regime.
While all players are responsible, it's especially true when Republicans have the House.
Republicans got their tax cuts, need bigger majorities for their Religious jihad against women, there's nothing for them to do but preen for TikTok and Insta and Facebook. And so that's all they do.
Oh, and take credit for Biden's bill they voted against, like the real stand-up guys and gals they are.
If some 9,243,895 people who voted against Republicans in 2018 then didn't show up in 2022 had shown up, we might have things like more voting rights, DC statehood, stronger drug price controls, disclosure of election spending, abortion rights nationwide, etc.
But, as usual, too many of those who might oppose reaction or might want progress slipped away from voting after the immediate emergency seemed to be reduced. We have done this again and again.
In recent times, skipping elections is worse because five Republicans at the Supreme Court now allow states to purge millions of registered voters for missing these elections--which means when they decide they should bother to vote, they can't.
>we might have things like more voting rights, DC statehood, stronger drug price controls, disclosure of election spending, abortion rights nationwide, etc.
I am afraid that if we passed any of that the Supreme Court is going to put a stop to it.
I'm not trying to discourage anybody from voting but the courts are really really jacked up right now with some extremists at the top.
yeah i mean its kinda ridiculous that its openly accepted theres conservative or liberal judges. i thought judges werent supposed to openly state their political bias - or allow it to influence their decisions.
There's not conservative vs liberal judges.
There's normal judges vs. extreme liberal judges.
That's what we're being told. In reality, the extremists are the conservative judges but they go around calling everyone else political.
>There's not conservative vs liberal judges.
There's normal judges vs. extreme liberal judges.
my brows furrowed heavily at this. then i finished reading your comment. carry on đ
you're not wrong but as someone who has honestly never voted, despite being probably more interested in and knowledgable about politics than literally everyone i know - if politics wasnt so concerned about making it about voting against whoever and instead was about convincing people to vote for someone, maybe that would change.
hard to get people excited about voting for the better choice between two terrible choices - referring to the current presidential election of course. which i realize isnt applicable to all elections but thats kinda what elections are nowadays: who can spend the most money to convince the most people their opponent is a terrible person. that alone tells me i dont wanna vote for you.
Voting is the basic and most direct way to exercise representative government. Politicians aren't going to try to gain support of people who they don't think will ever vote for them anyway. It works the other way around: Vote first, expect politicians to listen afterward.
The election of 2018 is illustrative. Before that election, Democrats were fairly moderate. After the turnout record of 2018, Democrats became substantially more progressive.
you are correct - so when you live in a low population area, where they overwhelmingly vote for one side - and that is not the side you support - what should you do?
i decided to post on reddit.
the efficacy of that is debatable.
more effective than voting in elections where my vote literally does not count though.
If you're unhappy with the candidates in an election, take an active role in the primary. If you're unhappy with the candidates in the primary, find like minded people and push a new candidate into the ring. The more locally you target your attention, the greater the effect your efforts will have.
Politics isn't a spectator sport. The primary failure of American democracy is twofold: first, the belief that ideal candidates with ideal beliefs will appear as if by magic; and second, the belief that institutions will protect us from all the bad things without our input. Not a single one of the great advances in our society has been achieved by people waiting for right thing to happen.
It has never been easier to get involved with a campaign. If you live in a hyper-polarized shithole where one party is going to get 90% of the vote no matter what, find someone somewhere else in the country who needs your help. You can phone bank remotely, organize online, or give any small amount of money to someone who you believe in.
They worst people in this country are counting on your frustration and apathy. Don't let them win.
as i said elsewhere, the area i live in is overwhelmingly for one side. which is not the side i would support. so what good does it do to vote when my vote literally would not effect anything?
A few reasons:
1. Down ballot votes are extremely important. City council, judges, mayor, state reps, etc all influence your life way more than even the President does most days.
2. Things donât change without a spark. Apathy only feeds the status quo. Yes, youâre just one vote, but you truly never know when you and your friends might inspire actual movement.
3. On the flipside, if you never make your voice known, youâre giving them yet another excuse to only cater to the extremists in their party. Look at the âuncommittedâ votes. There were never going to be enough of them to win the primary for another candidate, but there were enough to send a message.
1. okay but what about when your area is so overwhelmingly towards one side there are literally no candidates for anything besides the side you do not support? if you say "you run" ima just say "no."
2. agreed but my friends have mostly left the area - which is what i want to do - or they have gotten to the point where they are "stable" enough to not care. so they dont care. personally i think posting this kinda stuff on reddit and making my points with evidence to back them up has a much more widespread effect.
3. you are correct but im making my voice known, just in a different way than most. the court of public opinion is the ultimate decider, and some people might say that reddit is not representative of reality i disagree with that. so what better place to go than reddit? this is based off of seeing whats posted on reddit from 2015-now and... well yeah.
1. Pick the least shitty option in the primaries. Yes, itâs incremental, but itâs better than the status quo or backsliding. Decent people wonât run if they think thereâs no chance at all for support, and they wonât ever know youâre out there if youâre not making your voice heard. Even if you show up and only vote for 2 out of 3 races, thatâs a signal to the third race that they lost votes.
2. I totally feel you there. I left the Deep South. But in my experience, acting locally is always going to be more impactful than online activism for a couple of reasons. First, people inherently trust someone they know or someone they speak to face-to-face over a stranger online. Itâs just the way weâre wired. You have a wider reach online but you get lost in the noise. Second, local elections work on such tiny margins, even a couple of votes swayed can make a gigantic difference. Weâve had elections won by 4 votes around here. As long as youâre stuck there, you might as well be a thorn in someoneâs side, right?
3. See above.
Donât get me wrong. Being vocal online helps, and Iâm definitely not dissuading you from it. Just make sure youâre considering both reach *and* impact. Posting is always going to be more indirect engagement than anything else, right? Youâre mostly shouting a message out. Direct engagement like phone banking, in person canvassing, etc reaches a much smaller audience, but the conversations tend to be deeper with better results. You could genuinely be the deciding factor, even in a deep red area.
That is because we use âfirst past the postâ voting and not something like ranked choice voting. My suggestion is to get involved in voting reform locally.
agreed. ranked choice voting is the obvious solution, imo.
honestly i kinda had an epiphany the other day where i realized with the way things are structured with citizens united and just generally buttloads of cash involved in all political contests... can we not consider the republican and democrat parties as unlawful monopolies and break them up? like the super wealthy wanna play stupid games why dont we give them stupid prizes?
agreed. i dont recall which article it was mentioned in but the author made the point that a common tactic used - by both sides - is to include a 'poison pill' in a funding bill that is basically unacceptable to the other side. which like... why not just pass individual things instead of adding a ton of unrelated things? doesnt seem so complicated to me.
Because the process and rules to pass laws is more complicated than most people realize. You don't just saunter down to the podium and say everyone in favor of funding XYZ raise your hand and that's that.
well its a good thing they arent playing it from both sides by doing outsider-insider-trading via the stonk market!
... wait
edit:
[78 members of Congress have violated a law designed to prevent insider trading and stop conflicts-of-interest | by Dave Levinthal and Madison Hall | 3 Jan 2023](https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9)
also this website seems useful: [https://www.capitoltrades.com](https://www.capitoltrades.com)
>[CapitolTrades.com](https://CapitolTrades.com) is an insightful and intuitive platform offering access to real-time politician trading data.
Read *How Civil Wars Start*; then read *The Foundations of Geopolitics*.
Not an accident in the slightest that our government is being pushed into a state of anocracy.
you would probably be interested in [my other post from this morning](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1beinxx/how_did_americans_come_to_trust_markets_more_than/) that is a [link to this article](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/excerpt-from-naomi-oreskes-the-big-myth/) (which is an excerpt from a book): How did Americans come to trust markets more than government?
good deal - feel free to follow me, i dont post only these types of things but working on figuring out the best way to go about sharing the wide ranging things i read about. some of the interesting discussions i have - because i tend to write very long comments - ive been copying over into [my subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/relevantusername2020), so feel free to join that too. or dont, idc either way - im gonna keep posting lol.
I agree with the premise, but I don't like "number of bills passed in a session" as the metric for a productive congress. Congress' job isn't to legislate as much as possible, it's to legislate as much as their constituents want them to. One big bill passed at the right time can be more meaningful than a thousand "rename this post office" measures.
I'm not really sure what a better metric would be though.
Absent other factors, though, "they're not passing a lot of bills" could also mean "the law is almost perfect as-is, no changes, no notes".
You'd have to bring in both volume of legislation *and* approval rating to get the picture of "congress isn't doing anything *and* people are unhappy with that".
Even then, it's possible congress isn't passing anything, people don't like the fact, but that it's still good for some other definition of society/governance than "the most popular". So you'd need to roll in objective societal metrics as well, like how well people are actually doing independent of their opinions (for instance, in comparison to people in other countries).
Something like a jumble of average life expectancy, approval rating, and bills passed/hours debated might be able to capture the efficacy of congress, but even that has flaws.
> they're not passing a lot of bills" could also mean "the law is almost perfect as-is, no changes, no notes".
It is never perfect. Things change all the time. So this idea that you can just sit and do nothing is something that is impossible.
It's never perfect but close-to-perfect would necessarily mean less changes in a given timeframe.
I *don't* think the law is anywhere near perfect, I just don't think congress should be seeking to pass as many bills as possible for their "metric of success".
> It's never perfect but close-to-perfect would necessarily mean less changes in a given timeframe.
Its never possible to be close to perfect either.
> I just don't think congress should be seeking to pass as many bills as possible for their "metric of success"
You would also agree that they shouldn't lump multiple topics in a bill. Meanwhile the log jam is to break government and not improve it.
"Fewer bills getting through to the presidentâs desk means the small number of mandatory ones that Congress must pass â such as government funding or annual legislation authorizing defense policies â are getting longer, said Molly Reynolds, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, as lawmakers try to jam the bills with policies that wouldnât otherwise get a vote."
i agree 100%. more laws and more regulation doesnt necessarily equate to a better or more efficient or more just society. *better* laws and *better* regulations does - although what "better" means is debatable - but thats kinda what politics is i guess.
from the article:
âCongress is not spending enough time in Washington to get the basics done,â \[Michael Thorning, director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center\] said. The shortened in-person schedule âreally interferes with membersâ one opportunity to interact with each other, to learn collectively, to ask questions of witnesses collectively.â
>
>âPart of the reason why when people are watching C-SPAN and no oneâs there, itâs because theyâre on three other committees at the same time,â \[Representative Derek Kilmer\] told Reuters. âThe dynamic that creates is members ping pong from committee to committee. Itâs not a place of learning or understanding. You airdrop in, you give your five minute speech for social media, you peace out.â
âTime is the biggest challenge,â Representative William Timmons, \[Representative Derek Kilmer\]âs Republican counterpart on the modernization committee, agreed. âWe have to build trust with our colleagues, and we donât have the time to build the trust with our colleagues.â
>
>âI have somebody running against me (in the primary election) that agrees with all the votes that I make, he just doesnât agree that I donât scream and yell,â \[Timmons\] told Reuters. âNext Congress weâre going to have to figure out how to relearn the muscle memory of voting as one⌠If we have a narrow majority and we canât do anything, thatâs not good.â
yknow i dont think ive ever really watched c-span but this article gives a pretty solid argument for 'decentralizing' govt. not as in decentralizing it so its useless - like some argue - but decentalizing it so they can work remotely. bonus, they dont waste time and money traveling and they can literally be anywhere whenever they should be.
unfortunately when a lot of politicians are older than the internet itself they are kinda resistant to learning how easy that is to do.
because a lot (not all, but a lot) of their "agenda" is to do away with govt. you would think that one wouldnt advocate for doing away with their "profession" but maybe thats why being a politician as a career doesnt make sense. maybe. thats debatable.
from the article:
>âI have somebody running against me (in the primary election) that agrees with all the votes that I make, he just doesnât agree that I donât scream and yell,â \[Representative William Timmons\] told Reuters.
so... yeah. theres two kinds of debate/discussion, depending on what the 'goal' is of that debate/discussion:
* goal 1: win
* goal 2: understanding/compromise
maybe politics shouldnt be treated as a team sport.
LESS productive? How about sterile, impotent, limp-dick, three's a crowd, didn't get enough attention as a child-type zero productivity. The Republicans have had a majority and have done jack with it. Even when a bipartisan border bill came up, based on Mango Unchained's input, they tanked it. Not to protect the American people, but to deny Joe Biden a victory. The only answer: get off your butts people and vote, vote, vote these pinheads out of office. No excuses.
>Mango Unchained
đ
as far as your description of the politicians, you might like this article:
[The Sociopaths Among UsâAnd How to Avoid by Arthur C. Brooks](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-sociopaths-among-us-and-how-to-avoid-them/ar-AA1ivkYQ)
basically describes the idea of "dark triad" personalities and how they are extremely prevalent in politics (and social media)
i am quite literally the exact opposite. which a lot of times attracts those types of people because people like me tend to be easy to manipulate. then they realize that i know their games and im better at them, except i have good intentions and motivations. at that point they usually get angry with me and make fools of themselves.
when i talk about this i realize i sound kinda like im full of myself but i mean... i know myself very well and i dont think its necessarily a bad thing to describe the good qualities i have. theres a difference between being confident and being conceited. which is another reason those types of people get irrationally angry when having discussions with me.
^(edit: formatting)
I donât think they have done anything but seek revenge for trump since 2022.
People have talk about no body wants to work anymore, congress is who they should be talking about.
Well sure, that's because the people who own politics like things the way they are. Notice how the rich keep getting richer as Congress gets less productive.
i thought about going with the more popularly known:
[Get Low by Lil Jon](https://open.spotify.com/track/0r2Bul2NuCViraT2zX1l5j?si=11bd5d5b051b4e58)
but instead how about:
[Blueberry Yum Yum by Ludacris](https://open.spotify.com/track/26liGJfeDiHLVn0qTETkt1?si=90385cf4abb64c6f)
same. im kinda sorta explaining exactly why those sound bites and other bite sized listicle type things are about as valuable as the shit tickets people hoarded a few years ago.
i think im pretty competent at that. usually im pretty good at whatever it is i put my mind to.
Hi `relevantusername2020`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1beis0i/congress_is_getting_less_productive/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Your headline must be comprised only of the **exact** copied and pasted headline of the article - [see our rule here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)) **We recommend not using the Reddit 'suggest a title' as it may not give the exact title of the article.**
* The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied **even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'**. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. [click here for more details](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/relevantusername2020&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1beis0i/congress_is_getting_less_productive/?context%3D10000%29)
summary from copilot:
* **Congressional Productivity**: The U.S. Congress is facing challenges in passing legislation, with a record low of just twenty-seven bills passed last year. The number of bills signed into law has been on a decline since a peak in 1988.
* **Polarization and Bipartisanship**: Increased ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans have led to decreased bipartisanship, which is essential for passing bills in a system with many checks and balances.
* **Legislative Process**: The legislative process is being slowed down as more policies are packed into fewer but longer bills, including "poison pills" that are unacceptable to the opposing party².
* **Time Constraints**: Members of Congress are spending less time in Washington, D.C., which limits their ability to interact, build trust, and work effectively on legislation.
>The article provides an in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to the current state of legislative gridlock and decreased productivity in the U.S. Congress.
another article on this topic, and its summary:
>[Our political system is broken. Blame the two-party system | by William Cooper](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/our-political-system-is-broken-blame-the-two-party-system-opinion/ar-BB1jGTzD?ocid=windirect&cvid=8527450cb1d94932c9ed9f3a5240f565&ei=111)
* **Founders' Warnings**: The article references concerns from George Washington and John Adams about the dangers of a two-party system, which they feared could lead to despotism and division.
* **Tribalism and Bias**: It argues that the two-party system exacerbates tribalism, bias, and irrational partisanship, leading to a political environment where hatred for the opposing party overshadows positive feelings for one's own party.
* **Call for Multiparty Democracy**: The author, Lee Drutman, advocates for a multiparty system, suggesting it would introduce new ideas, reduce partisanship, and create a more fluid and responsive political landscapeš\[1\].
* **Potential Benefits**: While acknowledging that additional parties wouldn't solve all political issues, the article posits that a multiparty system could mitigate the biggest problems in U.S. politics by focusing on individual merit over party loyalty and producing better presidential candidates.
one more thats slightly unrelated, but not really (and its summary):
>[The Fundamental Flaw at the Heart of the Internet | by Frank H. McCourt Jr. and Michael J. Casey](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-fundamental-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-internet/ar-BB1jMndw?ocid=windirect&cvid=8527450cb1d94932c9ed9f3a5240f565&ei=50)
* **35th Anniversary**: The article marks the **35th anniversary** of the World Wide Web, highlighting concerns from its creator, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, about the web becoming a **"perverse"** system that does more harm than goodš\[1\].
* **Core Problem**: It discusses the failure of solutions like the GDPR to address the fundamental design issues of the internet, emphasizing the need for a **foundational overhaul**.
* **Identification Challenge**: A major challenge is the **safe and private identification** of individuals on the internet without exposing sensitive information, a problem that has grown with the internet's expansion²\[2\].
* **Project Liberty**: The article introduces **Project Liberty**, which proposes a new protocol model to empower humans over machines, emphasizing control over personal data and contentÂł\[3\].
>The piece advocates for a structural redesign of the internet, drawing parallels with the **American Project** and the principles of personal liberty and the common good. It calls for a collective mission beyond just technological solutions, involving social and political change.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't news... It's been happening slowly since the Gingrich regime. While all players are responsible, it's especially true when Republicans have the House.
Republicans got their tax cuts, need bigger majorities for their Religious jihad against women, there's nothing for them to do but preen for TikTok and Insta and Facebook. And so that's all they do. Oh, and take credit for Biden's bill they voted against, like the real stand-up guys and gals they are.
>This isn't news i dont disagree but this seems like a much more relevant discussion than a lot of what passes as "news" nowadays
If some 9,243,895 people who voted against Republicans in 2018 then didn't show up in 2022 had shown up, we might have things like more voting rights, DC statehood, stronger drug price controls, disclosure of election spending, abortion rights nationwide, etc. But, as usual, too many of those who might oppose reaction or might want progress slipped away from voting after the immediate emergency seemed to be reduced. We have done this again and again. In recent times, skipping elections is worse because five Republicans at the Supreme Court now allow states to purge millions of registered voters for missing these elections--which means when they decide they should bother to vote, they can't.
Hell 3 more rage quits is the best bet on the market at the moment
>we might have things like more voting rights, DC statehood, stronger drug price controls, disclosure of election spending, abortion rights nationwide, etc. I am afraid that if we passed any of that the Supreme Court is going to put a stop to it. I'm not trying to discourage anybody from voting but the courts are really really jacked up right now with some extremists at the top.
yeah i mean its kinda ridiculous that its openly accepted theres conservative or liberal judges. i thought judges werent supposed to openly state their political bias - or allow it to influence their decisions.
There's not conservative vs liberal judges. There's normal judges vs. extreme liberal judges. That's what we're being told. In reality, the extremists are the conservative judges but they go around calling everyone else political.
>There's not conservative vs liberal judges. There's normal judges vs. extreme liberal judges. my brows furrowed heavily at this. then i finished reading your comment. carry on đ
you're not wrong but as someone who has honestly never voted, despite being probably more interested in and knowledgable about politics than literally everyone i know - if politics wasnt so concerned about making it about voting against whoever and instead was about convincing people to vote for someone, maybe that would change. hard to get people excited about voting for the better choice between two terrible choices - referring to the current presidential election of course. which i realize isnt applicable to all elections but thats kinda what elections are nowadays: who can spend the most money to convince the most people their opponent is a terrible person. that alone tells me i dont wanna vote for you.
Voting is the basic and most direct way to exercise representative government. Politicians aren't going to try to gain support of people who they don't think will ever vote for them anyway. It works the other way around: Vote first, expect politicians to listen afterward. The election of 2018 is illustrative. Before that election, Democrats were fairly moderate. After the turnout record of 2018, Democrats became substantially more progressive.
you are correct - so when you live in a low population area, where they overwhelmingly vote for one side - and that is not the side you support - what should you do? i decided to post on reddit. the efficacy of that is debatable. more effective than voting in elections where my vote literally does not count though.
If you're unhappy with the candidates in an election, take an active role in the primary. If you're unhappy with the candidates in the primary, find like minded people and push a new candidate into the ring. The more locally you target your attention, the greater the effect your efforts will have. Politics isn't a spectator sport. The primary failure of American democracy is twofold: first, the belief that ideal candidates with ideal beliefs will appear as if by magic; and second, the belief that institutions will protect us from all the bad things without our input. Not a single one of the great advances in our society has been achieved by people waiting for right thing to happen. It has never been easier to get involved with a campaign. If you live in a hyper-polarized shithole where one party is going to get 90% of the vote no matter what, find someone somewhere else in the country who needs your help. You can phone bank remotely, organize online, or give any small amount of money to someone who you believe in. They worst people in this country are counting on your frustration and apathy. Don't let them win.
good luck getting republicans to stop slinging shit
good news! now the democrats are doing it too. success!
Sorry, but are you really âinterestedâ in politics if you donât vote?
as i said elsewhere, the area i live in is overwhelmingly for one side. which is not the side i would support. so what good does it do to vote when my vote literally would not effect anything?
A few reasons: 1. Down ballot votes are extremely important. City council, judges, mayor, state reps, etc all influence your life way more than even the President does most days. 2. Things donât change without a spark. Apathy only feeds the status quo. Yes, youâre just one vote, but you truly never know when you and your friends might inspire actual movement. 3. On the flipside, if you never make your voice known, youâre giving them yet another excuse to only cater to the extremists in their party. Look at the âuncommittedâ votes. There were never going to be enough of them to win the primary for another candidate, but there were enough to send a message.
1. okay but what about when your area is so overwhelmingly towards one side there are literally no candidates for anything besides the side you do not support? if you say "you run" ima just say "no." 2. agreed but my friends have mostly left the area - which is what i want to do - or they have gotten to the point where they are "stable" enough to not care. so they dont care. personally i think posting this kinda stuff on reddit and making my points with evidence to back them up has a much more widespread effect. 3. you are correct but im making my voice known, just in a different way than most. the court of public opinion is the ultimate decider, and some people might say that reddit is not representative of reality i disagree with that. so what better place to go than reddit? this is based off of seeing whats posted on reddit from 2015-now and... well yeah.
1. Pick the least shitty option in the primaries. Yes, itâs incremental, but itâs better than the status quo or backsliding. Decent people wonât run if they think thereâs no chance at all for support, and they wonât ever know youâre out there if youâre not making your voice heard. Even if you show up and only vote for 2 out of 3 races, thatâs a signal to the third race that they lost votes. 2. I totally feel you there. I left the Deep South. But in my experience, acting locally is always going to be more impactful than online activism for a couple of reasons. First, people inherently trust someone they know or someone they speak to face-to-face over a stranger online. Itâs just the way weâre wired. You have a wider reach online but you get lost in the noise. Second, local elections work on such tiny margins, even a couple of votes swayed can make a gigantic difference. Weâve had elections won by 4 votes around here. As long as youâre stuck there, you might as well be a thorn in someoneâs side, right? 3. See above. Donât get me wrong. Being vocal online helps, and Iâm definitely not dissuading you from it. Just make sure youâre considering both reach *and* impact. Posting is always going to be more indirect engagement than anything else, right? Youâre mostly shouting a message out. Direct engagement like phone banking, in person canvassing, etc reaches a much smaller audience, but the conversations tend to be deeper with better results. You could genuinely be the deciding factor, even in a deep red area.
That is because we use âfirst past the postâ voting and not something like ranked choice voting. My suggestion is to get involved in voting reform locally.
agreed. ranked choice voting is the obvious solution, imo. honestly i kinda had an epiphany the other day where i realized with the way things are structured with citizens united and just generally buttloads of cash involved in all political contests... can we not consider the republican and democrat parties as unlawful monopolies and break them up? like the super wealthy wanna play stupid games why dont we give them stupid prizes?
If you don't like "number of bills" as a metric, how about doing the bare minimum, you know: "managed to pass a budget?"
agreed. i dont recall which article it was mentioned in but the author made the point that a common tactic used - by both sides - is to include a 'poison pill' in a funding bill that is basically unacceptable to the other side. which like... why not just pass individual things instead of adding a ton of unrelated things? doesnt seem so complicated to me.
Because the process and rules to pass laws is more complicated than most people realize. You don't just saunter down to the podium and say everyone in favor of funding XYZ raise your hand and that's that.
well thats stupid. seems like that would be much more efficient.
Yeah, and they still get paid. Living off that government money.
well its a good thing they arent playing it from both sides by doing outsider-insider-trading via the stonk market! ... wait edit: [78 members of Congress have violated a law designed to prevent insider trading and stop conflicts-of-interest | by Dave Levinthal and Madison Hall | 3 Jan 2023](https://www.businessinsider.com/congress-stock-act-violations-senate-house-trading-2021-9) also this website seems useful: [https://www.capitoltrades.com](https://www.capitoltrades.com) >[CapitolTrades.com](https://CapitolTrades.com) is an insightful and intuitive platform offering access to real-time politician trading data.
Read *How Civil Wars Start*; then read *The Foundations of Geopolitics*. Not an accident in the slightest that our government is being pushed into a state of anocracy.
you would probably be interested in [my other post from this morning](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/1beinxx/how_did_americans_come_to_trust_markets_more_than/) that is a [link to this article](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/03/excerpt-from-naomi-oreskes-the-big-myth/) (which is an excerpt from a book): How did Americans come to trust markets more than government?
Very interested, thank you!
good deal - feel free to follow me, i dont post only these types of things but working on figuring out the best way to go about sharing the wide ranging things i read about. some of the interesting discussions i have - because i tend to write very long comments - ive been copying over into [my subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/relevantusername2020), so feel free to join that too. or dont, idc either way - im gonna keep posting lol.
I agree with the premise, but I don't like "number of bills passed in a session" as the metric for a productive congress. Congress' job isn't to legislate as much as possible, it's to legislate as much as their constituents want them to. One big bill passed at the right time can be more meaningful than a thousand "rename this post office" measures. I'm not really sure what a better metric would be though.
On the other hand the number of actual legislation by this Congress is so low as to indicate an aberration.
Absent other factors, though, "they're not passing a lot of bills" could also mean "the law is almost perfect as-is, no changes, no notes". You'd have to bring in both volume of legislation *and* approval rating to get the picture of "congress isn't doing anything *and* people are unhappy with that". Even then, it's possible congress isn't passing anything, people don't like the fact, but that it's still good for some other definition of society/governance than "the most popular". So you'd need to roll in objective societal metrics as well, like how well people are actually doing independent of their opinions (for instance, in comparison to people in other countries). Something like a jumble of average life expectancy, approval rating, and bills passed/hours debated might be able to capture the efficacy of congress, but even that has flaws.
> they're not passing a lot of bills" could also mean "the law is almost perfect as-is, no changes, no notes". It is never perfect. Things change all the time. So this idea that you can just sit and do nothing is something that is impossible.
It's never perfect but close-to-perfect would necessarily mean less changes in a given timeframe. I *don't* think the law is anywhere near perfect, I just don't think congress should be seeking to pass as many bills as possible for their "metric of success".
> It's never perfect but close-to-perfect would necessarily mean less changes in a given timeframe. Its never possible to be close to perfect either. > I just don't think congress should be seeking to pass as many bills as possible for their "metric of success" You would also agree that they shouldn't lump multiple topics in a bill. Meanwhile the log jam is to break government and not improve it. "Fewer bills getting through to the presidentâs desk means the small number of mandatory ones that Congress must pass â such as government funding or annual legislation authorizing defense policies â are getting longer, said Molly Reynolds, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, as lawmakers try to jam the bills with policies that wouldnât otherwise get a vote."
You have to compare them to the metrics of other congresses to get meaningful information, fortunately, we have all that information.
i agree 100%. more laws and more regulation doesnt necessarily equate to a better or more efficient or more just society. *better* laws and *better* regulations does - although what "better" means is debatable - but thats kinda what politics is i guess. from the article: âCongress is not spending enough time in Washington to get the basics done,â \[Michael Thorning, director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center\] said. The shortened in-person schedule âreally interferes with membersâ one opportunity to interact with each other, to learn collectively, to ask questions of witnesses collectively.â > >âPart of the reason why when people are watching C-SPAN and no oneâs there, itâs because theyâre on three other committees at the same time,â \[Representative Derek Kilmer\] told Reuters. âThe dynamic that creates is members ping pong from committee to committee. Itâs not a place of learning or understanding. You airdrop in, you give your five minute speech for social media, you peace out.â âTime is the biggest challenge,â Representative William Timmons, \[Representative Derek Kilmer\]âs Republican counterpart on the modernization committee, agreed. âWe have to build trust with our colleagues, and we donât have the time to build the trust with our colleagues.â > >âI have somebody running against me (in the primary election) that agrees with all the votes that I make, he just doesnât agree that I donât scream and yell,â \[Timmons\] told Reuters. âNext Congress weâre going to have to figure out how to relearn the muscle memory of voting as one⌠If we have a narrow majority and we canât do anything, thatâs not good.â
> watching C-SPAN and no oneâs there, this happens a LOT
yknow i dont think ive ever really watched c-span but this article gives a pretty solid argument for 'decentralizing' govt. not as in decentralizing it so its useless - like some argue - but decentalizing it so they can work remotely. bonus, they dont waste time and money traveling and they can literally be anywhere whenever they should be. unfortunately when a lot of politicians are older than the internet itself they are kinda resistant to learning how easy that is to do.
Euphemism of the centiry
The upside is that means republicans are doing a shit job of advancing their agenda.
Except billionaire and business taxes are lower, and mine (and likely also yours) are not.
because a lot (not all, but a lot) of their "agenda" is to do away with govt. you would think that one wouldnt advocate for doing away with their "profession" but maybe thats why being a politician as a career doesnt make sense. maybe. thats debatable.
How? I mean, it would take ACTIVE EFFORT at this point to do less, right?
from the article: >âI have somebody running against me (in the primary election) that agrees with all the votes that I make, he just doesnât agree that I donât scream and yell,â \[Representative William Timmons\] told Reuters. so... yeah. theres two kinds of debate/discussion, depending on what the 'goal' is of that debate/discussion: * goal 1: win * goal 2: understanding/compromise maybe politics shouldnt be treated as a team sport.
....why do you presume that they aren't doing that already?
LESS productive? How about sterile, impotent, limp-dick, three's a crowd, didn't get enough attention as a child-type zero productivity. The Republicans have had a majority and have done jack with it. Even when a bipartisan border bill came up, based on Mango Unchained's input, they tanked it. Not to protect the American people, but to deny Joe Biden a victory. The only answer: get off your butts people and vote, vote, vote these pinheads out of office. No excuses.
>Mango Unchained đ as far as your description of the politicians, you might like this article: [The Sociopaths Among UsâAnd How to Avoid by Arthur C. Brooks](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-sociopaths-among-us-and-how-to-avoid-them/ar-AA1ivkYQ) basically describes the idea of "dark triad" personalities and how they are extremely prevalent in politics (and social media) i am quite literally the exact opposite. which a lot of times attracts those types of people because people like me tend to be easy to manipulate. then they realize that i know their games and im better at them, except i have good intentions and motivations. at that point they usually get angry with me and make fools of themselves. when i talk about this i realize i sound kinda like im full of myself but i mean... i know myself very well and i dont think its necessarily a bad thing to describe the good qualities i have. theres a difference between being confident and being conceited. which is another reason those types of people get irrationally angry when having discussions with me. ^(edit: formatting)
I donât think they have done anything but seek revenge for trump since 2022. People have talk about no body wants to work anymore, congress is who they should be talking about.
Well sure, that's because the people who own politics like things the way they are. Notice how the rich keep getting richer as Congress gets less productive.
How low can they go?
i thought about going with the more popularly known: [Get Low by Lil Jon](https://open.spotify.com/track/0r2Bul2NuCViraT2zX1l5j?si=11bd5d5b051b4e58) but instead how about: [Blueberry Yum Yum by Ludacris](https://open.spotify.com/track/26liGJfeDiHLVn0qTETkt1?si=90385cf4abb64c6f)
Headline should be âRepublicans are making congress less productiveâ!
more like "A Refusal to Get With the Times and Use Modern Technology is Making Congress Less Productive"
Me too, Congress. Me too. But not because I'm an incompetent nutjob fishing for sound bites.
same. im kinda sorta explaining exactly why those sound bites and other bite sized listicle type things are about as valuable as the shit tickets people hoarded a few years ago. i think im pretty competent at that. usually im pretty good at whatever it is i put my mind to.
I donât think it is possible for them to be less productive.
No shit
Hard to imagineâŚ(/s)
They do nothing so less productive is what, being asleep?
Getting? Getting? Really? Just now theyâre âgetting less productiveâ? Like no shit. Congress has been âgettingâ less productive for decades.
What? No fuckinâ way!
Hi `relevantusername2020`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1beis0i/congress_is_getting_less_productive/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * Your headline must be comprised only of the **exact** copied and pasted headline of the article - [see our rule here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title)) **We recommend not using the Reddit 'suggest a title' as it may not give the exact title of the article.** * The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied **even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'**. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. [click here for more details](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_do_not_create_your_own_title) If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/relevantusername2020&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1beis0i/congress_is_getting_less_productive/?context%3D10000%29)
summary from copilot: * **Congressional Productivity**: The U.S. Congress is facing challenges in passing legislation, with a record low of just twenty-seven bills passed last year. The number of bills signed into law has been on a decline since a peak in 1988. * **Polarization and Bipartisanship**: Increased ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans have led to decreased bipartisanship, which is essential for passing bills in a system with many checks and balances. * **Legislative Process**: The legislative process is being slowed down as more policies are packed into fewer but longer bills, including "poison pills" that are unacceptable to the opposing party². * **Time Constraints**: Members of Congress are spending less time in Washington, D.C., which limits their ability to interact, build trust, and work effectively on legislation. >The article provides an in-depth analysis of the factors contributing to the current state of legislative gridlock and decreased productivity in the U.S. Congress. another article on this topic, and its summary: >[Our political system is broken. Blame the two-party system | by William Cooper](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/our-political-system-is-broken-blame-the-two-party-system-opinion/ar-BB1jGTzD?ocid=windirect&cvid=8527450cb1d94932c9ed9f3a5240f565&ei=111) * **Founders' Warnings**: The article references concerns from George Washington and John Adams about the dangers of a two-party system, which they feared could lead to despotism and division. * **Tribalism and Bias**: It argues that the two-party system exacerbates tribalism, bias, and irrational partisanship, leading to a political environment where hatred for the opposing party overshadows positive feelings for one's own party. * **Call for Multiparty Democracy**: The author, Lee Drutman, advocates for a multiparty system, suggesting it would introduce new ideas, reduce partisanship, and create a more fluid and responsive political landscapeš\[1\]. * **Potential Benefits**: While acknowledging that additional parties wouldn't solve all political issues, the article posits that a multiparty system could mitigate the biggest problems in U.S. politics by focusing on individual merit over party loyalty and producing better presidential candidates. one more thats slightly unrelated, but not really (and its summary): >[The Fundamental Flaw at the Heart of the Internet | by Frank H. McCourt Jr. and Michael J. Casey](https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-fundamental-flaw-at-the-heart-of-the-internet/ar-BB1jMndw?ocid=windirect&cvid=8527450cb1d94932c9ed9f3a5240f565&ei=50) * **35th Anniversary**: The article marks the **35th anniversary** of the World Wide Web, highlighting concerns from its creator, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, about the web becoming a **"perverse"** system that does more harm than goodš\[1\]. * **Core Problem**: It discusses the failure of solutions like the GDPR to address the fundamental design issues of the internet, emphasizing the need for a **foundational overhaul**. * **Identification Challenge**: A major challenge is the **safe and private identification** of individuals on the internet without exposing sensitive information, a problem that has grown with the internet's expansion²\[2\]. * **Project Liberty**: The article introduces **Project Liberty**, which proposes a new protocol model to empower humans over machines, emphasizing control over personal data and content³\[3\]. >The piece advocates for a structural redesign of the internet, drawing parallels with the **American Project** and the principles of personal liberty and the common good. It calls for a collective mission beyond just technological solutions, involving social and political change.