Mark E. Rush

Even a brief survey of contemporary political literature in print and on the
Internet indicates that criticism of American political institutions is alive and
well. Regarding the House of Representatives, critics cite several flaws that
indicate just how unrepresentative the political process and the House are. These
criticisms include "high rates of incumbent reelection, large contributions to
incumbents' campaigns, noncompetitiveness of political parties in most districts,
low voter turnout in elections and low diversity in representation." ¹ In response,
calls abound for reforms such as term limits, increased use of initiatives and
referenda, proportional representation, and campaign spending restrictions.

It is important to remember that "reform" is frequently just another way of
saying "change." "Reform," of course, implies improvement. But advocates
of reform proposals do not always explain how they will differ from mere
change. As well, it is not necessarily clear reformers have identified bona fide
ailments in the American political system. In many cases, the objects of con-
temporary reform proposals are nothing more than the smooth workings of the
constitutional system. Advocates of direct democracy, for example, are unhappy
with the clearly representative nature of the political system contemplated by
the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. Those who would restrict campaign spend-
ing must contend with prevailing interpretations of the 1st Amendment equating
political spending with political speech. On the other hand, the entrenchment of
incumbents, low voter turnout, low representative diversity, and the noncom-
petitiveness of elections are products of the single-member plurality electoral
system. Thus, attempts to remedy these problems do not necessarily run afoul
of the Constitution.

In this chapter, I offer a guarded, skeptical response to general calls for reform
to the American political system and specific proposals to enhance the repre-

-51-