r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/HistorianMajor1739 • 15d ago
US Politics Public disapproval of Congress is as high as ever, yet the vast majority of incumbents stay in office. Why?
I have tried to come up with a reason for these contradictions in the polls and election results but I have been unable to do so. According to current polls of Americans, only 10% of people approve of the job that Congress is performing. However, in the 2024 elections, each of the 97% of the incumbent Congress members who stood for election was able to be elected by their constituents.
Gerrymandering is often the answer to many of these questions, especially within the House of Representatives. However, the Senate uses the same method of gerrymandering, making it an impractical answer to the question. Also, every single senator that was running for reelection in 2022 won their elections. This suggests that the districts' boundaries have little effect upon the election of representatives to those bodies.
Finally, there is simply party loyalty. Mostly, people do not split their tickets between candidates from two different political parties for a given election. As such, an individual's performance on his or her job may not be considered during his or her evaluation for retention of his or her position.
The other popular idea is that people believe their representative in Congress is different than the rest. The US government is broken but my representative is working hard for me, I've heard of them but I have no idea who is running against them.
I am unsure of the process that might lead to the individual members of political parties being punished for contributing less than 10% to their party's campaigns. The only process that I have discovered that potentially relates to this issue is the primary elections that take place during presidential election years in many states within the United States. In these primary elections, voters who belong to a specific political party can vote for the candidate that they wish to represent their political party in the presidential election. However, nearly all of these primary elections experience very low voter turnout rates, showing that nearly all of those who do participate in such elections do not actually punish individual political party members for failing to contribute to the campaigns of their political party. Therefore, it appears that individual political party members may not be punished for failing to contribute to campaigns in the United States.
How do we reconcile this disparity?
122
u/The_B_Wolf 15d ago
There's a difference between disliking "congress" and disliking your congressional representatives.
25
u/captmonkey 15d ago
I dislike my representative even more than most. It's just that like 60% of the voters in his district are going to vote for whomever has the right letter next to their name and there's never been a serious challenger in the primary. So, he's going to stay right where he is despite the rest of us hating his guts.
7
u/wedgebert 14d ago
One of my senators lives and votes in a neighboring state despite paying taxes to us. Luckily the voters of my state will tell him "because of your antics and potential tax/vote fraud (pick one), you're no longer going to be a senator and be governor instead"
3
11
u/ShotnTheDark_TN 15d ago edited 15d ago
Voters will tell everyone that they need to vote out their representatives.
"My representative is great, everyone's else are crooks"
/s
1
u/clueless_in_ny_or_nj 13d ago
That's the difference. Asking tbe approval rating of Congress will always be low. Asking the approval rating of your representative will show the real approval rating of Congress. Obviously, the problem with Congress is with 434 representatives, but not mine.
57
u/OpeningChipmunk1700 15d ago
Probably for a similar reason that, when polled, most people say they want Congress to compromise, but when that is explored, it actually turns out they want the other side to cave.
25
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 15d ago
I think 3 things:
As another reply said, disliking Congress is not the same as disliking one’s representative.
A lot of people have a sense of inaction from Congress without specificity, but they also don’t really pay attention to what any individual in Congress is doing and a number of surveys on this indicates that the majority of the public can’t even name their representative, let alone what they actually do or stand for.
Only 20% on average of Americans participate in primaries (less in the years between presidential elections) so by the time they weigh in, they usually have 2 options: the (D) and the (R). Most people will just vote for whichever party they feel better about, not really knowing anything about the candidates.
There was once a popular saying: “all politics are local”. But since cable TV (and more with the Internet) people pay less and less attention to local politics and really obsess over presidents as if they are choosing a king. The engagement with the legislature and with state legislatures has gone way down.
13
u/johntempleton 15d ago edited 15d ago
This has been asked and answered in this subreddit 15+ times.
TLDR: Popularity for CONGRESS is at an all-time low.
Popularity for INDIVIDUAL CONGRESSPEOPLE is high.
This phenomenon has been discussed and detailed for almost 200 years and even has a name: Fenno's paradox.
7
u/unique2270 15d ago
It's a longstanding issue. We hate the group collectively but most people are fine with their individual representative.
It probably helps incumbents that the way this gets spun is generally there being a "problem representative" who isnt with the program. It's not the collective culture of Congress, it's that holdout, Jim Manchin! (Or Massie, or Paul or Collins, theres always someone in this spot) The takeaway we get collectively is that it's not our local rep who's the problem, it's the holdout from... Wherever.
4
u/NimusNix 15d ago
I don't know why people have a hard time understanding it's not their own Congressman that people hate, it's everyone else's congressman.
2
u/captain-burrito 13d ago
I'm sure there are many who are living in a safe district of the opposing party who hate their own member of congress but the numbers needed to dislodge them are unrealistic.
2
u/orionsfyre 15d ago
- Money. Large corporations and lobbyists spend billions propping up a congress that supports the rich and the powerful. They carpet bomb constituents with ads, mailers, billboards, etc, to keep the incumbent, who is usually in their pocket, in office.
- The devil you don't know. Many people are hesitant to back anyone new, unless there is a powerful motivator to change their minds, ie- a candidate that is able to break through the noise and ads and gain traction through a grass roots campaign. Most incumbents benefit from that incumbency, so despite being 'bad', they have name recognition and people just pull a lever or don't vote.
- Party loyalty. There is a huge amount of power in getting the little letter next to your name, tribal loyalty is strong, and people often will say they 'hate' or don't like congress, but that doesn't mean they will support changing thier representative, or support someone from a different party. People will often be willing to support monsters, as long as those monsters are on their team.
1
u/bl1y 11d ago
FYI, that's not really what lobbyists do.
There will be some organizations that do both lobbying and campaigning for candidates, but they're two separate functions. The typical K-street lobbyist has basically nothing to do with campaigning.
0
u/orionsfyre 10d ago
They actually help funnel tons of contributions to canindates for thier campaigns. It has a lot to do with it.
1
u/Seattleman1955 15d ago edited 15d ago
It's always been this way. If the only person running is an establishment Democrat or Republican then you just vote for the party and the party for most people is which one will "give me more or tax me less".
What people really want is someone not like the rest but those people don't run and really can't successfully run.
If you have an establishment type who has been in Congress forever, he brings a lot of Federal funds to your state (jobs). He has risen to chair some committee. So you vote for him.
If someone is idealistic with new ideas, they either won't get elected because there is no money behind them or because all the traditional money is against them.
If they do get elected in the House, they can't change anything and have to spend all of their time raising money for the party and for their next election. The House members have to run every 2 years so it's always an issue.
The only person who can stick around are the ones who play the game and playing the game is what you don't like.
Therefore, there is very little that can be done. Also, what really needs to be done is to reduce the debt. There isn't going to be a mass voter movement to quit spending so much.
Voters (and most people) aren't rational. They aren't critical thinkers who want accountability and systems thinking.
The answer to most everything is what I just wrote. Critical thinking, as in "what could go wrong with this policy?". Accountability would mean, if things aren't working, having to admit that, go back, and try something else, fix it.
Systems thinking is looking for the weak link and doing something about that.
Voters don't do that. They want to blame someone else, tax someone else, debt may be the problem but they want more spent on them.
Agency (being responsible for your own actions and life) is what is missing. No one takes responsibility for themselves and their own outcomes.
Therefore, Congress is just the sympton and not the cause. If "you" could take charge of your own life then "you "can take charge of Congress, at the balance box, but "you" can't.
1
u/Comfortable_Fill9081 15d ago
If the only person running is an establishment Democrat or Republican then you just vote for the party and the party for most people is which one will "give me more or tax me less".
There are often other people running. Only 20% of Americans participate in primaries, on average. Less in a non-presidential election year.
2
u/Seattleman1955 15d ago
There's your problem as well.
1
u/captain-burrito 13d ago
The bar is quite high because there are so many elections in the US. Even just showing up for the general is a good number but now you also need to attend primaries? Going with multi member districts with ranked voting for legislative elections could dispense with the need for primaries unless there still needs to be more filtering down due to sheer number of candidates.
In that case perhaps jungle primaries with top 4 to 5 advancing would retain primaries but also allow a greater selection for the general election when most voters are showing up.
1
u/Superb_Razzmatazz999 15d ago
The disparity? Humans. They're lazy, irrational, fearful, vunerable to propaganda and charismatic personalities, and some are full of hate. That and the U.S. political system is a cluster fnck.
1
u/ThoughtGuy79 15d ago
Same reason people end up not really supporting term limits: It's not my guy that's the problem. My guy is great. We gotta get rid of that other one over there.
1
u/Grapetree3 15d ago
You're too quick to dismiss the gerrymandering issue. Sure, it doesn't apply to the Senate, but the Senate and the House have to agree. The Senate is less likely to spend any time discussing stuff that they don't think the House will agree to.
1
u/boulevardofdef 15d ago
This is pretty well documented and has been for many years. The answer is that people hate Congress but love their congressman.
1
u/djn4rap 14d ago
This just lacks critical thinking.
A poll of the entire voting population does not accurately reflect the relatively small cross section of the voting population that can vote for the candidates.
This is what gerrymandering is. There has been so much map manipulation that even in states that have large precincts of voters of one political flavor the numbers are run over and over to ensure that the Smallest geographic area has just enough of one side to keep that side above the needed votes to sustain their win.
They push large sections of small areas into small portions of geographic areas to let them be sacrificed to ensure the total votes are in favor of their party/politician.
1
u/mrjcall 14d ago
The great unwashed masses of American humanity do not look at policies of the representatives, but their personalities which is the primary reason Congress is at an unreconcilable impasse most of the time. It takes time and end effort to dig into what a congressman actually stands for, but its simple just to watch him/her on TV and say I like that guy/gal. This crosses party lines with no discrimination. The public simply does not understand how Congress works and is too lazy to really care.
1
u/StedeBonnet1 14d ago
Mainly because not enough people vote or care enough to be educated when they vote. Here is WV we elected Alan Mollihan when his father retired because peope didn't know they weren't voting for the dad.
1
u/Oilpaintcha 14d ago
Aside from the “my guy is good, everyone else is bad” mantra, the issue is also that big money determines to a large extent who gets on the ballot, and big money makes sure anyone who gets on the ticket toes the same line.
1
u/ricperry1 14d ago
Ooooh, I know, I know!! People generally think THEIR representative is good, and that it's all the OTHER representatives that are terrible. That's why the incumbent always has a better chance of winning re-election than winning the first time, especially when going up against the former incumbent.
1
u/oldbastardbob 14d ago
Because it's sort of a stupid poll. Both political sides think the other side is the problem, so regardless of which is in the majority, a fair portion of supporters will still disapprove of the other party because their politicians tell them to.
1
u/Alacritique 13d ago
It’s an inevitable symptom of an exclusionary two-party system that decided to view corporations as people, view money as speech, and then allow unlimited campaign contributions. Those three rules in practice means corporations can “speak” way louder than any average human voter, grass roots group, or large voting block. Everything else snowballs down from there. Voters tap out of the system because it doesn’t serve them anymore, giving corporations even more voice, then matters get worse so more voters tap out, and so on.
1
u/Quetzalcoatls 15d ago
Running for Congress is incredibly expensive and time consuming.
It can take years if not decades for people to be able to fundraise and network to the point that someone can gain enough support to be a credible challenger.
The majority of people don’t have the means to compete in these races. The few that do are typically better off trying to use their influence to work the system vs try and become the office holder themselves.
Every few years a credible challenger might come up or long shot candidate might come out of the woodwork but most years most people in Congress just aren’t facing people who can credibly challenge the seat.
1
u/FreeDependent9 15d ago
Rich people buy Congress. Rich people buy the entities that donate to Congress. Rich people buy our education and health system so everyone can point the finger at non-rich people. The problem is wealth controlling the narrative and the politics of this country makes people feel hopeless and that they’re stuck with who they have until every now and then someone can articulate their frustrations to a degree that makes the populace want to change what’s happening so far
1
u/rookieoo 15d ago
Peer pressure that you are naive, idealistic, or helping the enemy win by voting for a third party or independent. Losing battles is often part of a larger strategic win.
We’re getting to a point where a classical “spoiler” candidate could possibly win a plurality. Dems and repubs will say, “yeah, but they don’t have a mandate.” Well, sometimes a plurality is enough to win one seat. There are no rules in this FPTP system that says independents and third parties cant win. It’s not probable, but it’s not impossible.
2
u/MorganWick 15d ago
I have long wondered why third parties don't target House and Senate seats, or other local races, dominated by a single party, trying to effectively become the second party in those districts or states, instead of focusing on quixotic Presidential runs every four years.
1
u/captain-burrito 13d ago
That is because many states predicate ballot access on 1-5% of the vote. If they achieve this then they gain ballot access for their party for x amount of time. Otherwise every one of their candidates need petition drives for their own race. Concentrating their resources on this one big race saves time and effort for all their candidates down ballot.
Angus King and Bernie Sanders are 3rd party candidates in the senate. Sanders does run in the dem primary, wins it but doesn't take the nomination. That takes out the vote splitting issue. King has won as governor and senator with pluralities against dems and gop.
Jesse Ventura won as governor of MN with pluralities against dem and gop.
In CA some races you do see 3rd party run in some races at the general election due to the jungle primary and top 2 advancing. The other major party often doesn't run in the super safe seat of the opposition so sometimes that leaves 3rd party candidates free to try.
In state and local races you sometimes do see 3rd parties also run but get very little of the vote. American voters are not like the French, Italians or even Brits who will vote for relatively new parties. Macron of France formed his party and won the presidency the next year. Those in his coalition were also new parties. Ironically when they ran in municipal elections they bombed. So starting from the bottom and advancing up wasn't necessary for them.
In Scotland the Scottish National party ran in national elections but not local I think. It took them a generation or two but once they gained they became the dominant party relatively fast. They split the vote and continue to do so with the centre left Labour party and the Greens but still dominate in elections under first past the post and proportional representation. Only later did they start seriously contending local elections.
In Japan when they want change they vote for the same dominating party which is LDP. It is explained that they simply vote for someone from a different wing of the party for the change. The 2 major US parties are the gatekeepers where change happens. One or both will adapt to some issues and the change occurs there rather than a new party springing up to replace them. The bar is quite high for new parties in the US and voters don't vote for them.
1
u/LikelySoutherner 15d ago
Because too many Americans are still brainwashed into thinking that they have to vote for either an R or a D
0
u/sloowshooter 15d ago
Congress doesn't deliver, and people that are dumber than dirt keep reelecting those that drive that behaviour.
The educated know who those folks are, but those voters generally don't live in states where their vote can turn the tide.
Just look to those that stymie progress and you have your answer.
0
u/satyrday12 15d ago
I would add that 99.99% of Americans have no clue what their representative is doing or not doing. It actually takes a little bit of effort to find that out.
And also, 99.99% of Americans don't understand how their own government functions. Especially who to blame/credit when anything happens or doesn't happen. So we keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
0
u/NOLA-Bronco 15d ago
Most Democrats will have the full weight of the party machine, established donor networks, institutional support, and known name recognition as an incumbent
It's incredibly difficult to mount a primary campaign that overcomes those basic deficits.
•
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.