【学习者 20141114】国会可以代表美国吗？

满仓

【中文标题】国会可以代表美国吗？
【原文标题】Does Congress Really Represent America?
【登载媒体】学习者
【原文作者】Dawn Cardon
【原文链接】http://learni.st/boards/92339/learnings/775027-if-congress-looked-like-us




众议员和参议员由全体选民选出，代表民众的需求、利益和价值。那么国会在多大程度上可以体现出这种代表性？

国会和美国民众的组成是一样的吗？


（点击查看大图。）

男人主导政治已经不是什么新闻了，尤其是白种男人。即使如此，当我们把目前国会的性别结构与其实际应当代表的国家人口性别分布做个比较，结果依然令人不安。看看上面的数据图就会得出这样的结论。

最令人吃惊的差异在于财富值。平均一个美国人的净财富值只有不到10万美元，这包括了他们的房子、投资、退休金和其它非流动资产，也包括银行账户和短期投资等。而国会成员的平均财富值是500万美元，至于参议员，高达1340万美元。这能代表你所在的社区状况吗？

让他们脱离群众的原因不是财富，而是缺乏多样性。



在有些国家，致富的最佳途径是从政。但是在美国却恰恰相反，从政的最佳——有些人说是唯一——途径是要有钱。

每年，一家名为《点名》的报纸都会列出国会中最富有的成员。这些当选官员的财富状况被公之于众，让公众颇感欣慰，尽管有人会质疑这些财富的来源。实际上，这些人的财富并不是在当官期间积累起来的，而主要是在进入国会或参议院之前。国会选举的高额成本让巨大的财富成为必要的先决条件。

如果国会成员被选民推举的主要目的是“代表”，那么他们的社会经济地位应该不是首要被考虑的因素。他们的专业北京甚至比他们的财富状况更加缺乏多元化。在25个顶级富豪中，15个人的专业背景几乎一样，都是技术类型企业家和律师，三分之一的国会成员职业都是律师。剩下10个人的财富来源是婚姻和继承。大部分国会成员一辈子从政。如此狭窄的职业群体为极为多元化的民众说话，我们怎么能期待他们可以真正地代表？

我们这辈子见不到国会山的性别平等了。



女性目前占国会成员的20％，也就是五分之一。据女性政策研究所新近发布的一份报告，按目前的趋势来看，要到2121年国会才可以呈现出平均的男女比例。

尽管有米特•罗姆尼所谓的“一大摞女性”，但女性政策研究所发现，性比男性被党首和活动人士选中参与竞选的可能性更小。这意味着，如果想要实现一个性别平等的国会，女性就必须比男性更积极地激励自己。

另外一个导致国会中男女不均的因素是党派性别不平衡。共和党在国会中的女性成员比共和党多出很多。这里主要有两个原因，比较重要的一个原因让女性倾向于民主党在于这个党的亲女性政策。共和党依然在反对保护平等待遇的亲女性法案，甚至不同意反对强奸和家庭暴力相关的法案。另外一个原因是民主党“多元化、多中心”的性质，这个词被研究人员用来形容有野心的女性加入这个党派的低门槛。

国会成员的巨额财富从哪里来？



国会山的最高身家将近3.6亿美元，这还不包括洛克菲勒的继承人。2012年，政策响应中心的调查结果显示，众议员的平均身家超过100万美元。在一个至少需要1000万美元才能谋得一个席位的年代里，富人蚁聚于此毫不为奇。

这些百万富翁的财富都从哪里来？继承和婚姻是主要的来源：参议员杰伊•洛克菲勒和约瑟夫•肯尼迪三世都继承了巨额的家庭财富。参议员米奇•麦考尔、约翰•麦凯恩和克莱尔•麦卡斯齐尔的大部分财富都来自配偶。而那些不靠继承和婚姻致富的人，财产来源也比较单一。

实际上，国会成员手中的财富来源与普通人的收入完全不同。大部分立法者的主要收入不是依靠工资，2010年，150位立法者申报的收入组成中，外部投资获利大于他们的国会工资收入。需要提醒的是，他们的工资收入本已不菲，大约相当于普通家庭收入的三倍，达到17.4万美元。对于一个普通美国人来说，这已经是一笔巨款，但对国会成员来说，似乎只是九牛一毛。

我们为什么那么讨厌国会？



公民发现，国会代表根本无法为他们的利益代言。长久以来，人们对国会的认可率徘徊在13％左右。这几乎可以被视为全体的否决，但大部分国会席位的竞争并不激烈。435个人竞争408个席位，每个人获胜的几率超过90％，似乎竞选前一切都已经敲定了。

导致公众对国会不满的主要因素是我们的选举制度。单一席位、地理选区和太多的入选者必然会造成糟糕的代表性。这套系统起源于美国政治制度形成的年代，或许该重新调整一下。国内单一的党派身份和倾向于为一党投票的现状（例如，民主党在城市地区），依然导致国会的代表性不强。或许选举制度改革在短期内还无法提到国会的议事日程上，但是如果把衡量选民如何不满的问卷改成为什么不满的问卷，还是可以有所收益的。这或许可以帮助未来的国会选民了解选区民众的担心和不满，至少在大选年他们会有所顾忌。



原文：

The House of Representatives and the Senate are elected by their constituencies to represent these populations' needs, priorities, and values. How representative is Congress of the nation they are meant to mirror? Read on to find out.

If Congress Looked like Us

It’s not new news that political leadership within the US is over-indexed on men, and primarily white men at that. Even with this in mind, when the composition of Congress is compared to the actual make up of the country that they are meant to represent, it's still a little disturbing. Take a look at the infographic found on this resource attached to this learning.

The most remarkable discrepancy is average wealth. The average American holds a net worth of just under $100,000. This includes equity in their home, investments that include pension or retirement funds, and other illiquid assets as well as bank accounts and more liquid investments. The net wealth of an average member of the House is $5M and for a Senator, a whopping $13.4M. Does this seem representative of your community?

It’s Not Wealth That Makes Them out of Touch, It’s Their Lack of Diversity.

In some countries, the best way to get rich is to go into politics. In the US, it’s the reverse. The best – and one could argue the only - way to get into politics is to start out rich.

Every year a paper called Roll Call assembles a list of the richest members of Congress. The very fact that the financial information about these elected officials is made available to the public is comforting, though the high levels of wealth might lead to questions about its origins However, these wealthy elect didn’t gather their fortunes while in office. Their substantial assets predate their entrance into the House or Senate and, considering the cost of a Congressional campaign, were essentially a necessary prerequisite for entrance.

If the members of Congress are employed by their electorate with a primary purpose to represent, it’s not just their socioeconomic status that is of concern. They are even less diverse in their professional backgrounds than they are in their wealth levels. Of the top 25 richest, 15 represent a narrow array of professional backgrounds, primarily technology entrepreneurs and lawyers. One-third of Congress members listed the latter as their occupation. The remaining 10 found their way to the list via marriage or inheritance. The majority of Congress members have spent their whole lives in politics. With such a narrow few meant to speak for so many, how can we expect anything like real representation?

No One Alive Today Will Ever See Gender Equality on Capitol Hill

Women currently represent 20%, or one out of every five Congress members. According to a report recently released by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, if the status quo continues, it will be 2121 before the House will be evenly divided between male and female members. The core driver behind this gender divide isn’t a lack of motivation on the part of women. In their research, IWPR found that women were blocked by

Despite Mitt Romney’s alleged ‘binders full of women,’ the IWPR’s research found that women are much less likely than men to have been recruited to run for office by party leaders and activists. This means that women need to actually be more ambitious than men in self-recruiting if we expect to end up with a more evenly-gendered US Congress.

Another issue that drives gender disparity in Congress is the imbalance within political parties. The Democrats have a lot more women than the Republicans in Congress. This is due to two factors, the larger of which is likely the fact that more women tend to go democratic because of the party’s more pro-woman agenda. Republicans continue to vote against pro-femme bills protecting equal pay or even those that fight rape and domestic violence. A second reason that more female Democrat Congresswomen exist is the party’s “pluralistic and polycentric” nature, fancy words the researchers used to describe lower barriers of entry for ambitious new female office-seekers.

How Did Members of Congress Get So Wealthy?

The highest net worth on Capitol Hill is nearly $360 million. And that’s before you even get to the Rockefeller heir. In 2012, the Center for Responsive Politics found that the median congressman was worth more than one million dollars. In an era when it costs an average of more than $10 million to win a seat, it’s no surprise that the wealthy and well-connected would be overrepresented.

How did these millionaires make all their dough? Inheritance and marriage play a significant role: Senator Jay Rockefeller and Representatives Joseph Kennedy III are heirs to large family fortunes. Senators Mitch McCaul, John McCain, and Claire McCaskill all derive the majority of their wealth from spouse-owned assets. For those who didn’t marry rich or grow into a significant trust fund, there is still similarity in their earnings.

The way in which Congress members ‘earn’ their money is, in fact, very different than that of the general population. Most lawmakers, unlike their constituents, don’t draw the majority of their income from a paycheck. In 2010, more than 150 lawmakers reported earning more from outside investments than from their congressional salary. This salary, mind you, is more than three times the average household income, weighing in at $174,000. For an average American, $175K is a substantial stream of income. For a Congressperson, however, it seems to be a drop in the bucket.

We All Hate Congress So Much, but Why?

Citizens ultimately aren't finding their interests very well-represented by their Congressional representatives. This is obvious from the consistently abominable Congressional approval rating which currently hovers around 13%. Despite this dramatically low rate of approval, or one might say near-unanimous disapproval, most House races are noncompetitive. Um... what? In 408 of the 435 House elections, one party is favored to win with chances of greater than 90%, which decides the winner of the race before it ever begins.

A key problem that leads to the public's frustration with Congress is our electoral system. Single seat, geography-based districts with plurality winners create poorly representative outcomes. This system, which dates back to the very creation of our political system in the US, perhaps deserves reconsideration. The existence of distinct national party identities and the tendency of votes for one type of party vs. another to cluster in certain geographical areas (ex: Democrats in urban areas) contribute to a poorly representative House of Representatives. While election reform is likely not on the Congressional agenda anytime soon, it might do us well to turn one of the polls that measures how dissatisfied voters are with Congress into a questionnaire about why. This might help future Congress members understand the concerns and discontents of their constituencies such that, at least at election time, they could pay some heed.

每天的晨吟

顶LZ！
至于它代不代表的，关我P事儿

rootec

图文并茂，看得爽。