2016 Presidential Horse Race

[T Town Tommy]

For some reason, I found it funny when you wrote:



But then wrote this:



You literally got mad at him for stereotyping all republicans and stereotyped liberals in the same breath. lol. Carry on, gentlemen...

It was funny... in my response I had typed that he was being critical of the very people that have supported his own party for several decades. I deleted it out before posting. I guess those particular people within his own party aren't high brow enough.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The problem isn't just at the Federal level. The cost of Governor elections is increasing as well (as are all elections) and when you give the power to the states, people aren't going to stop spending money on elections. The NRA and Unions which are both already heavily involved in state politics and will become even more so. The billionaires will just focus on state elections where they do business but they will still be spending lots of money.

Of course there will always be corruption, even at lower levels of government. But it's a lot harder for a billionaire to effectively lobby 50 different state legislators than a single legislative committee in DC. Lower levels of government are much easier for average people to influence, and are therefore much more responsive to their constituents' needs.

Getting most of the money out of politics would probably be the best thing for the people.

It's pure fantasy. Money and power are two sides of the same coin. You cannot advocate for increasing the size and scope of the Federal government while also railing against corruption. Doing the former only makes it easier for moneyed interests to capture the levels of power.

Once the power of special interests are diminished some hopefully people will become more responsive to their constituents instead of to their fat cat donors (both Democrats and Republicans).

"Once all men are angels..."

 

[Corry]

The problem isn't just at the Federal level. The cost of Governor elections is increasing as well (as are all elections) and when you give the power to the states, people aren't going to stop spending money on elections. The NRA and Unions which are both already heavily involved in state politics and will become even more so. The billionaires will just focus on state elections where they do business but they will still be spending lots of money.

Getting most of the money out of politics would probably be the best thing for the people. Once the power of special interests are diminished some hopefully people will become more responsive to their constituents instead of to their fat cat donors (both Democrats and Republicans).

ETA: It isn't a cure all but a good first step, along with some kind of term limits.

Rick Scott spent over 150 million of his own money on two gubernatorial elections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott

 

[pkt77242]

Of course there will always be corruption, even at lower levels of government. But it's a lot harder for a billionaire to effectively lobby 50 different state legislators than a single legislative committee in DC. Lower levels of government are much easier for average people to influence, and are therefore much more responsive to their constituents' needs.

Disagree. It is already becoming harder for the average person to influence local government and with increased power it will become almost as difficult as it is to influence a member of Congress.

It's pure fantasy. Money and power are two sides of the same coin. You cannot advocate for increasing the size and scope of the Federal government while also railing against corruption. Doing the former only makes it easier for moneyed interests to capture the levels of power.



"Once all men are angels..."

Same goes to you. Don't you think giving the power to the states will just increase the corruption at the state level? I sure as Hell bet it will.

It is easier to watch a few hundred congressmen for corruption than it is to keep track of thousands of people in the state legislature.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Disagree. It is already becoming harder for the average person to influence local government and with increased power it will become almost as difficult as it is to influence a member of Congress.

Compared to what? It is way easier to get a meeting with a state legislator than a congressman; I had lunch with one just the other day. Not sure how you can even argue this point.

Same goes to you. Don't you think giving the power to the states will just increase the corruption at the state level? I sure as Hell bet it will.

It's not just about devolving power from the Feds to the states, but from the states down to cities, schools, neighborhoods, etc. Nothing that can be handled adequately at a lower level of government should ever be pushed to a higher level.

Would doing so increase corruption at those levels? Of course. But we're talking about civil institutions that have been consistently undermined over the last century; for some of them, they're virtually powerless now. So yes, devolving power to currently powerless institutions would increase corruption at those levels. But some corruption is inevitable, because humans are naturally corrupt. The important thing is to keep political authority as close to the people as possible, so that corruption can be checked by an active and virtuous citizenry.

It is easier to watch a few hundred congressmen for corruption than it is to keep track of thousands of people in the state legislature.

Seriously? Who's going to watch them? And who's going to watch the watchers? We're talking about the most powerful people in the world here. Since BCRA was passed, incumbent candidates have been winning at a significantly higher rate v. challengers than before the law was passed. What a surprise! We let Washington insiders write campaign finance rules, and they just happened to rig the game in their own favor.

The core problems here are human nature and extreme concentrations of power. Campaign finance reform can't begin to address either of them.

 

[IrishLax]

Disagree. It is already becoming harder for the average person to influence local government and with increased power it will become almost as difficult as it is to influence a member of Congress.

Same goes to you. Don't you think giving the power to the states will just increase the corruption at the state level? I sure as Hell bet it will.

It is easier to watch a few hundred congressmen for corruption than it is to keep track of thousands of people in the state legislature.

Let's leave corruption/influence aside for a second, and let's talk about "responsiveness."

When you look at efficiently run Socialist countries -- like Sweden -- the vast majority of their tax money stays "local" with local Governments empowered to spend it effectively. I think we would all agree that a town has a better* idea of what the town needs than a group of a few dozen lawmakers thousands of miles away who have maybe never even seen the place.

I, personally, think that there needs to be a balance of centralized power and local control. I don't think we have that balance right now, as evidenced by things like the Transportation Bill, etc. that turn into glorified parliamentary pork battles. There are some specific bills and Congressional procedures that I read books on years ago while in school that just make you shake your head and say "what the f*ck are we actually doing?" because it sure as hell isn't "governing" and it DEFINITELY isn't "for the people."

 

[pkt77242]

Let's leave corruption/influence aside for a second, and let's talk about "responsiveness."

When you look at efficiently run Socialist countries -- like Sweden -- the vast majority of their tax money stays "local" with local Governments empowered to spend it effectively. I think we would all agree that a town has a better* idea of what the town needs than a group of a few dozen lawmakers thousands of miles away who have maybe never even seen the place.

I, personally, think that there needs to be a balance of centralized power and local control. I don't think we have that balance right now, as evidenced by things like the Transportation Bill, etc. that turn into glorified parliamentary pork battles. There are some specific bills and Congressional procedures that I read books on years ago while in school that just make you shake your head and say "what the f*ck are we actually doing?" because it sure as hell isn't "governing" and it DEFINITELY isn't "for the people."

I agree that a balance would be nice but I want to see as much money taken out of politics first. Otherwise I believe that we will see just as much "pork" spending at the state level . You can never remove all money from politics but there isn't a reason that we shouldn't try to remove as much as possible from politics.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I agree that a balance would be nice but I want to see as much money taken out of politics first. Otherwise I believe that we will see just as much "pork" spending at the state level . You can never remove all money from politics but there isn't a reason that we shouldn't try to remove as much as possible from politics.

How can that be accomplished? Those with power want money, and those with money want power. The two parties to that transaction will always find a way to make it happen. The only way to combat it is by making the exchange inefficient (i.e. increased transactional costs) by dispersing political power as widely as possible.

Edit: Also important to note that it has been tried, through the establishment of the FEC and multiple attempts at comprehensive campaign finance reform, but all such attempts have failed miserably.

 

[ND NYC]

still surprised people in the states that pay more in fed taxes than they get back aren't more vocal about it.

for example in NJ, IIRC, for every $1 they pay in federal taxes they get back .63

most "red" states are the primary beneficiaries of "blue" states' federal tax dollars.

 

[kmoose]

Disagree. Most could make more money being lobbyists. It is the power that keeps them coming back.

Again you can't get elected without mone, either your own or people giving it to you.

Again.......... an outsider can get the money, the power, and everything else that goes with politics, in the business that they have already been successful in. You do need other people's money to get elected, yes.......... but they cannot hold that over your head, once you get in. You don't need their continued financial support to finish out your term. Now, if you want to get reelected, then maybe they can hold that over your head and try to exert influence on you. But you have the option to say no, because you can always go back to the private sector and have all of the things that politics brings. Career politicians have ONLY politics to fall back on. Who is going to hire a former senator as a lobbyist, after he rebuffed them while in office?

 

[pkt77242]

Compared to what? It is way easier to get a meeting with a state legislator than a congressman; I had lunch with one just the other day. Not sure how you can even argue this point.

Yes currently it is easier to meet a state legislator than a congressman (though it is getting more difficult) but if you give more power to that state legislator the same thing will happen to them. People with power have tons of people wanting to meet them/ask them to do something. More power to the state legislator means more people wanting to see them which means less time to meet with average citizens.

It's not just about devolving power from the Feds to the states, but from the states down to cities, schools, neighborhoods, etc. Nothing that can be handled adequately at a lower level of government should ever be pushed to a higher level.

Would doing so increase corruption at those levels? Of course. But we're talking about civil institutions that have been consistently undermined over the last century; for some of them, they're virtually powerless now. So yes, devolving power to currently powerless institutions would increase corruption at those levels. But some corruption is inevitable, because humans are naturally corrupt. The important thing is to keep political authority as close to the people as possible, so that corruption can be checked by an active and virtuous citizenry.

I think that you underestimate just how corrupt local governments can be and are.
Just look here in AZ with APS and the utility regulators. The other thing I would point out is look at education funding. You live in AZ look at our schools and education funding and compare it to the rest of the US. How does it look?

Seriously? Who's going to watch them? And who's going to watch the watchers? We're talking about the most powerful people in the world here. Since BCRA was passed, incumbent candidates have been winning at a significantly higher rate v. challengers than before the law was passed. What a surprise! We let Washington insiders write campaign finance rules, and they just happened to rig the game in their own favor.

The core problems here are human nature and extreme concentrations of power. Campaign finance reform can't begin to address either of them.

First off incumbent rates really aren't really better after BCRA.

Next up the key is to make things transparent. Why shouldn't Senate and House expense reports be searchable online (I know that they are/were added online but make it even easier). How about having to post a list of visitors or people who meet with them? How about listing donors to Super PACs?


As to your last point? I agree that some corruption is inevitable but this idea that campaign finance reform can't do anything doesn't make sense. No it will not fix everything, but it is an important first step. Power is corrupting but what allows them to get re-elected so often is the advantages in fund raising and now Super PACs (name recognition can help as well). Also they need money to stay in power and when they owe people for giving them money (or Super PACs spending money on ads) then it is too late, there is little chance of preventing the corruption.


ETA: sorry if the end is a little all over the place.

 

[pkt77242]

Again.......... an outsider can get the money, the power, and everything else that goes with politics, in the business that they have already been successful in. You do need other people's money to get elected, yes.......... but they cannot hold that over your head, once you get in. You don't need their continued financial support to finish out your term. Now, if you want to get reelected, then maybe they can hold that over your head and try to exert influence on you. But you have the option to say no, because you can always go back to the private sector and have all of the things that politics brings. Career politicians have ONLY politics to fall back on. Who is going to hire a former senator as a lobbyist, after he rebuffed them while in office?

What? They have tons of contacts. Former politicians end up as lobbyists because of their contacts, who they know and who they can influence. You can't take that away. Plus they couldn't have pissed off all of the potential suitors out there. That is some wishful thinking. Plus many career politicians were successful before going into politics. It isn't even lobbying, might be going to work with a financial company if you were on the Finance committee as you know the ins and outs of financial reform and can help them navigate it. There is almost always a company willing to hire a former congressman to think otherwise is naive.

 

[pkt77242]

still surprised people in the states that pay more in fed taxes than they get back aren't more vocal about it.

for example in NJ, IIRC, for every $1 they pay in federal taxes they get back .63

most "red" states are the primary beneficiaries of "blue" states' federal tax dollars.

Truth
Which States Take the Most From the U.S. Government? - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[pkt77242]

How can that be accomplished? Those with power want money, and those with money want power. The two parties to that transaction will always find a way to make it happen. The only way to combat it is by making the exchange inefficient (i.e. increased transactional costs) by dispersing political power as widely as possible.

Edit: Also important to note that it has been tried, through the establishment of the FEC and multiple attempts at comprehensive campaign finance reform, but all such attempts have failed miserably.

First off, there are probably people much smarter than me who could figure it out.

1. I would think that you would have to start with it being a constitutional amendment so that it couldn't be thrown out.
2. It would have to include audits ever year for congressmen (both personal and their business expenses). Preferably done by people not in the IRS and paid very well to prevent as little corruption as possible (not that some wouldn't happen but to cut down on the amount).
3. It would probably include government funded elections (though I am open to other ideas that could be better)
4. I would like to see political parties banned. Elected officials should only be responsible to their constituents and the general well being of the U.S. They should not be beholden to their party or donors.
5. I am sure many other things but again there are people smarter than me to figure it out.

 

[kmoose]

What? They have tons of contacts. Former politicians end up as lobbyists because of their contacts, who they know and who they can influence. You can't take that away. Plus they couldn't have pissed off all of the potential suitors out there. That is some wishful thinking. Plus many career politicians were successful before going into politics. It isn't even lobbying, might be going to work with a financial company if you were on the Finance committee as you know the ins and outs of financial reform and can help them navigate it. There is almost always a company willing to hire a former congressman to think otherwise is naive.

every single reason you just gave for someone handing them money had to do with politics. If you don't believe that politicians are bought because they need to get reelected, then why do you care how much money is involved in politics?

 

[phgreek]

Go to welding school and you are making more in two years than over half of the college crowd in four. You will never be unemployed and you can pick up some equipment to make good money on the side in your spare time. Do underwater welding and make more than most pediatricians - without a ten year education plan costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Seriously...

I had to have some custom work done...the line item for the welder made me shit my pants...I did it ALLL wrong.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Yes currently it is easier to meet a state legislator than a congressman (though it is getting more difficult) but if you give more power to that state legislator the same thing will happen to them. People with power have tons of people wanting to meet them/ask them to do something. More power to the state legislator means more people wanting to see them which means less time to meet with average citizens.

Currently the average ratios for Federal representation are 1:3,100,000 for Senators and 1:713,000 for Congressmen. Even if corruption remains constant (which is unlikely), devolving power to states and municipalities would make those ratios much more favorable, which in turn results in greater responsiveness and accountability. The benefits are obvious.

I think that you underestimate just how corrupt local governments can be and are.
Just look here in AZ with APS and the utility regulators.

No illusions there. But it's a lot easier to hold politicians accountable at the local than the Federal level for the reasons outlined above. There's an inverse relationship between corruption and accountability, which is a big reason for why DC is such a cesspool.

The other thing I would point out is look at education funding. You live in AZ look at our schools and education funding and compare it to the rest of the US. How does it look?

This argument amounts to, "My neighbors are too stupid to be trusted with our public schools, so I'd rather grant that power to a distant Leviathan." If you've got a problem with the way your local schools are run/ funded, step up and make a difference. If your opinions on the matter are so at odds with your neighbors that such is impossible, you may need to vote with your feet and move.

But that said, Arizona has some of the best charter schools in the country. And just like most everywhere else, the public schools in wealthy areas are pretty good.

First off incumbent rates really aren't really better after BCRA.

They were already disturbingly high before 2002, and at best BCRA did nothing to address it. At worst, it exacerbated the problem.

Next up the key is to make things transparent. Why shouldn't Senate and House expense reports be searchable online (I know that they are/were added online but make it even easier). How about having to post a list of visitors or people who meet with them? How about listing donors to Super PACs?

Is it in anyone's interest to promote transparency here? Moneyed interests certainly don't want the scrutiny, and politicians don't want to make it harder for them to raise money. So where is the constituency for this magical change going to come from? And assuming for the sake of argument that it happens, how long do you think it'll take before these powerful groups figure out loop holes to get around the new reporting requirements? The problems are structural, not policy-related.

As to your last point? I agree that some corruption is inevitable but this idea that campaign finance reform can't do anything doesn't make sense. No it will not fix everything, but it is an important first step.

What are you talking about? It has been tried, many times, and it hasn't made anything better. It's arguably made things worse.

Power is corrupting but what allows them to get re-elected so often is the advantages in fund raising and now Super PACs (name recognition can help as well). Also they need money to stay in power and when they owe people for giving them money (or Super PACs spending money on ads) then it is too late, there is little chance of preventing the corruption.

It's a moral hazard. You can't trust these people to police themselves. And there's so much power and money at stake (due to the sheer size of the Federal government) that there's no way a third-party watchgroup wouldn't be co-opted either. As I mentioned above, it's a structural problem. As long as DC keeping agglomerating power, the corruption will only get worse, and there is no policy that can reverse this trend, because the people we're trying to police are the one's who make the policy.

 

[pkt77242]

Currently the average ratios for Federal representation are 1:3,100,000 for Senators and 1:713,000 for Congressmen. Even if corruption remains constant (which is unlikely), devolving power to states and municipalities would make those ratios much more favorable, which in turn results in greater responsiveness and accountability. The benefits are obvious.



No illusions there. But it's a lot easier to hold politicians accountable at the local than the Federal level for the reasons outlined above. There's an inverse relationship between corruption and accountability, which is a big reason for why DC is such a cesspool.



This argument amounts to, "My neighbors are too stupid to be trusted with our public schools, so I'd rather grant that power to a distant Leviathan." If you've got a problem with the way your local schools are run/ funded, step up and make a difference. If your opinions on the matter are so at odds with your neighbors that such is impossible, you may need to vote with your feet and move.

But that said, Arizona has some of the best charter schools in the country. And just like most everywhere else, the public schools in wealthy areas are pretty good.



They were already disturbingly high before 2002, and at best BCRA did nothing to address it. At worst, it exacerbated the problem.



Is it in anyone's interest to promote transparency here? Moneyed interests certainly don't want the scrutiny, and politicians don't want to make it harder for them to raise money. So where is the constituency for this magical change going to come from? And assuming for the sake of argument that it happens, how long do you think it'll take before these powerful groups figure out loop holes to get around the new reporting requirements? The problems are structural, not policy-related.



What are you talking about? It has been tried, many times, and it hasn't made anything better. It's arguably made things worse.



It's a moral hazard. You can't trust these people to police themselves. And there's so much power and money at stake (due to the sheer size of the Federal government) that there's no way a third-party watchgroup wouldn't be co-opted either. As I mentioned above, it's a structural problem. As long as DC keeping agglomerating power, the corruption will only get worse, and there is no policy that can reverse this trend, because the people we're trying to police are the one's who make the policy.

Since we aren't going to agree, I have one question. How do you propose that we take power away from Congress? If they are so bent on keeping power, isn't that just as difficult as finance reform? I don't see that being any easier than finance reform and it would probably be more difficult.

 

[wizards8507]

Since we aren't going to agree, I have one question. How do you propose that we take power away from Congress? If they are so bent on keeping power, isn't that just as difficult as finance reform? I don't see that being any easier than finance reform and it would probably be more difficult.

Article V convention of the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Mark-Levin/dp/145160632X

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

 

[RDU Irish]

Since we aren't going to agree, I have one question. How do you propose that we take power away from Congress? If they are so bent on keeping power, isn't that just as difficult as finance reform? I don't see that being any easier than finance reform and it would probably be more difficult.

Third party focused on reducing the size and scope of the federal government. It would not take a majority, say 5% of the House and Senate were in this third party and either party needed to deal with them to pass anything. Their focus would be clear - cut three existing pieces for every one that passes. Dems would gladly cut Republican pork and Republicans would gladly cut Democrat pork. The Bill du jour is always so damn important that cutting three minor items to pass one big one would rule the day and provide a sizeable amount of influence to this minority group.

Recent budget is just typical - we will pass the no brainer oil export thing but we need silly tax breaks for refiners (who are making money hand over fist right now), wind and solar credits and a ton of other extraneous crap to tag along with this monster spending bill.

The problem - nobody is lobbying for less so how do you possibly produce legislators who focus on such?

 

[RDU Irish]

Article V convention of the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.amazon.com/The-Liberty-Amendments-Mark-Levin/dp/145160632X

1. Impose Congressional term limits
2. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, returning the election of Senators to state legislatures
3. Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4. Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5. Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6. Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review
7. Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8. Limit eminent domain powers
9. Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution
10. Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11. Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting

I would love to see the electoral college represent the actual districts that produce electorates. Each congressional district counts and the state general vote determines the two Senate electoral votes. That would get real interesting real quick.

PKT - you have to agree this Article V convention addresses a ton of the "problem" you so passionately discuss. However, I can't wait to see the litany of excuses for why the cold is better than the cure. I suspect 95% of the retort will be based on feelings and 5% on fact. States are the organizations that are motivated to reclaim power and the logical avenue to pursue this change.

 

[wizards8507]

I would love to see the electoral college represent the actual districts that produce electorates. Each congressional district counts and the state general vote determines the two Senate electoral votes. That would get real interesting real quick.

PKT - you have to agree this Article V convention addresses a ton of the "problem" you so passionately discuss. However, I can't wait to see the litany of excuses for why the cold is better than the cure. I suspect 95% of the retort will be based on feelings and 5% on fact. States are the organizations that are motivated to reclaim power and the logical avenue to pursue this change.

I'll play devil's advocate for a second and contend that modern states are likely too large (in terms of population) to perform the federalist function I'd like to see from an Article V convention. When the Constitution was written, the states were viewed as allies of the people against the Federal government. Today, the dynamic is flipped such that the states are viewed as allies of the Federal government against the people.

 

[RDU Irish]

COS Action

Signed myself up and had them send the petition to my legislators. Congress will never cut themselves off at the knees and State reps would salivate at more power. Enemy of your enemy is your friend, right?

 

[IrishinSyria]

I don't know how people can honestly believe that local governance is less prone to corruption than national governance. Maybe I'm a creature of my environment, but in Chicago and in Illinois, the Federal government has been the only effective check on corruption. The more local you get here, the worse it is.

 

[phgreek]

I don't know how people can honestly believe that local governance is less prone to corruption than national governance. Maybe I'm a creature of my environment, but in Chicago and in Illinois, the Federal government has been the only effective check on corruption. The more local you get here, the worse it is.

I think Any level of government can have issues of corruption simply because NO level of government fears the people. When the constitution was written, you have to admit that these guys actually feared being shot, tarred and feathered, or just plain having the shit kicked out of them...Now, even when people get caught...the court system doesn't even nail them, much less their constituents heavy bagging them.

However, devolving power from Washington makes it non-pervasive when there is corruption, and more of a case-by-case. It allows for people to leave places like Chicago to seek a better deal...it gives the people a way to speak by allowing them to unplug...as things are now, what do you have to kill the corruption? Leaving the country?

 

[wizards8507]

I don't know how people can honestly believe that local governance is less prone to corruption than national governance. Maybe I'm a creature of my environment, but in Chicago and in Illinois, the Federal government has been the only effective check on corruption. The more local you get here, the worse it is.

As I said in a previous post, states are too large so your point about Illinois is well-taken.

For a city the size of Chicago, you're probably right. Contrast that with my home town. We had a town council of five people elected every single year and the whole town was on a first-name basis with their rep. It's much easier to exert influence as "we the people" when there's that kind of responsiveness.

 

[RDU Irish]

Milwaukee booted their county executives after big pension scandals and a few of them went to jail. When the corruption was uncovered there was a direct consequence.

Chicago is run by unions, they will be eating their own cooking. Even as screwed up as Chicago is, the counties and rest of the state are not totally under the thumb of the big city. State house and senate have substantial representation of suburbs and rural areas to keep Chicago from completely controlling the state. I don't understand how more power on that level less accountable than the feds?

Where exactly did Blago end up? Oh, yeah, the clink. Don't see that happening to federal officials.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Milwaukee booted their county executives after big pension scandals and a few of them went to jail. When the corruption was uncovered there was a direct consequence.

Chicago is run by unions, they will be eating their own cooking. Even as screwed up as Chicago is, the counties and rest of the state are not totally under the thumb of the big city. State house and senate have substantial representation of suburbs and rural areas to keep Chicago from completely controlling the state. I don't understand how more power on that level less accountable than the feds?

Where exactly did Blago end up? Oh, yeah, the clink. Don't see that happening to federal officials.

Because of a Federal investigation, which is my point. The drivers for accountability aren't local, they're Federal. And I really don't think non-Chicago Illinois is a model of responsible local governance either.

On one hand, local leadership is responsible to a smaller number of people, so they're arguably more responsive/in touch. On the other hand, their actions are subject to a lot less scrutiny, especially with the death of the local news in the US.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Since we aren't going to agree, I have one question. How do you propose that we take power away from Congress? If they are so bent on keeping power, isn't that just as difficult as finance reform? I don't see that being any easier than finance reform and it would probably be more difficult.

We'll likely agree on this point at least; it would take something extreme like an Article V convention or a third-party take-over of the GOP, which means it has virtually no chance of happening. But I'm completely certain that this is a structural problem, which will require a structural solution to fix. There's no bill that Congress could pass, in its current state, that would do the job.

This is slightly off-topic, but I think Trump's candidacy is exposing deep fractures within the Republican party, which in turn mirror deep fractures within the liberal political experiment generally. Candidates like Trump have been coming to power all across Europe for years already. Liberalism is inherently unsustainable for reasons outlined by Professor Deneen here. It's well past time we start talking about what will replace it.

Because of a Federal investigation, which is my point. The drivers for accountability aren't local, they're Federal.

Who's the driver for Federal accountability then? Who watches the watchers? The only effective check on corruption in a democratic republic is "We, the People". As government grows larger and more distant from its citizens, corruption only gets worse.

On one hand, local leadership is responsible to a smaller number of people, so they're arguably more responsive/in touch. On the other hand, their actions are subject to a lot less scrutiny, especially with the death of the local news in the US.

A big reason their actions are subject to less scrutiny is because the Feds have usurped so much power from states and municipalities that there's not much reason to pay attention anymore. Also, the citizenry needs to be engaged and virtuous to make a democratic republic work; but liberalism prefers to isolate and infantilize its subjects, rather than incentive the discipline necessary for a self-governing people. See the article regarding liberalism's inherent contradictions above.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't know how people can honestly believe that local governance is less prone to corruption than national governance. Maybe I'm a creature of my environment, but in Chicago and in Illinois, the Federal government has been the only effective check on corruption. The more local you get here, the worse it is.

South Carolina Politics on the state and local level is amazingly corrupt. I am surprised it never makes the news.