No but I do think there's a serious issue of over representation by congressmen. It's original intent was supposed to be a body closest to the people representing their interests at the federal level. Problem is they haven't added any new seats since 1913! All they do is shift how many each state gets every 10 years, which is why there's always a fight when it comes to drawing districts. So the end result is the average congressman represents a constituency of 500,000 or more people, thats larger than some cities! Who has the time or the money to cover areas that large? Then ask what interests are they likely going to really represent in order to win reelection with those rules.
I thought they already did, except for US senate. Here in California we have two Obama like socialists we can't get rid of to save our soul.
No. The only reason the house is slow to pass stuff is because it's constantly campaigning for respective districts. That's a good thing in my book. Though it encourages representatives to be uncompromising, representatives are supposed to represent the "people's interests". So elections every 2 years, in theory, would keep them on task. Senators don't really have this problem, seeing that their terms are 6-years long.
Yes and make them beg for raises like everyone else instead of voting their own!
Or at LEAST get rid of the two year terms. How the hell can you do your job when you spend your entire time soliciting donations and campaigning?
Yup. There's a lot of things wrong with politics.
Hell yes! Everyone knows this.