need help with assignment 87

i need someone to respond the following. your response should 100 words and no use of ourtside sources please

1-I wholeheartedly believe that the low turnover of representatives in Congress negatively affects their ability to make decisions or pass legislation. There’s no sense of responsibility or duty to your constituents if you know you’re going to win reelection, and it prohibits the incorporation of fresh ideas from other people, whether that be from other people within the incumbent’s party, or from the other party. But similarly, I don’t believe that high turnover would have a positive impact on Congress either. It’s been shown that most of our senators and representatives’ time is taken up by constantly fundraising for their next election, and even more so if said person is not an incumbent. It takes up so much time that it takes away from the job that they were elected to do. If you constantly have a pool of new people, in either house, who has to take more time away (than an incumbent) to make sure they can stay there, you still wouldn’t be getting anything done because so many people would be missing. I think that in order to have a working Congress, there needs to be less focus on fundraising for the next term, and a good mix of incumbents and fresh faces. The new people will need the incumbents to learn from about the process and the incumbents will need the new players for fresh ideas and new ways of thinking in order to actually have a kind of working Congress and to refocus them on their constituents and the rest of the American people.

2-In my opinion, I believe that the low turnover negatively affects Congress’s ability to pass legislature. If the same men and women in congress have a hard time passing legislature at first, 2 more years with the same members of congress will only make it worse in my opinion. Clearly the politicians in office currently have a hard time working with each other in a bi-partisan manner. If 95% of incumbents win re-election, that just means we are trying the same thing over and over when we have seen it fail numerous times in the past. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expected a different result. I do believe higher turnover in the House and Senate would have a positive impact on our current congress. If a higher turnover rate occurs on Tuesday, then that will show congress and politicians that their job and seat are not guaranteed. We need to hold these politicians, no matter if they are democrat or republican, to a higher standard than we have in the past. The work for us, and represent us, and we should be putting people in office who we can trust will express our voice when it comes to issues in this Country. I think higher turnover in Congress will directly show that we want things to change in this Country. How things are currently, especially with the administration currently in office, is not an example of how things should continue in the future in my opinion.

3-I believe that given the fact that 435 members of the House of Representatives are put up for re-election and 95% are re-elected is a bad thing. This 95% on being reelected can mean two things. One, that most of the 435 people that are part of the House of Representatives are deserving to keep their spot for a long time and thus get reelected, or two, that it is very hard to cause a change in the House of Rep. While I do not know many of the members, I do find it hard to believe that 95% of the 435 members are all great and thus deserve reelection for years to come. I am unsure whether or not I believe a higher turnover percentage will have a positive impact on Congress. This is because while it would mean that the people are voting out the members that they feel are not doing a good job, it would bring in a bunch of new members which could lead issues on making decisions. By this I mean that a bunch of new members who are lacking connections with the other members will not be able to have as much influence compared to the other well established members who have been around for years. Due to this, I think that a higher turnover could be a positive thing, but not too high. I also believe that members of the House should not be kicked out because they have been a part of it for too long, but rather voted off based on their actions.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *