Congress?

Democrats Reel as Senator Bayh Steps Aside - NYTimes.com: "What was most striking about Mr. Bayh’s announcement was the deep disillusionment he expressed with his place of employment, a feeling reflected in recent polls. In a New York Times/CBS News poll last week, 75 percent of respondents said they disapproved of the job Congress was doing; just 8 percent said members of Congress deserved re-election."

Tea Party members talk about a revolution and the Real Clear Politics job approval for Congress is down to 20.4%. It fell 3% just recently. I have discussed the role of the Presidency itself. President Obama has taken a lot of heat lately but it can of course be argued that much of his problem is from the system itself. Bayh's willingness to serve is not gone it is his willingness to serve in Congress that is diminished. Bayh said that the system used to work, eg, when his father was a senator. This would assume that changes has been made that no one talks about.

Dagens Nyheter is also noting the event. PJ Anders Linder and Ulf Bjereld discussed the Swedish election process yesterday on the program Studio Ett on the radio. Nya Moderaterna is having a hard time after some cheating in the election process was discovered. Linder advocated election of MPs via direct election whereas Bjereld wanted the party to nominate candidates according to the present system.

It is possible to argue for both types of candidates but what remains is what nasty tongues call "röstboskap", ie, MPs only function is to push that voter button. Some say that the Riksdag should be removed because it is outmoded. It is however hard to find data on the popularity of the Swedish Riksdag but is in all probability larger than that of the US and Great Britain. After recent scandals in Britain their approval rate must be below 20%.

That would be the same argument that the American polls indicate. They use a system of election to personal tickets and seem to have the same type of problem. Dick Erixon often brings up this question and have the argument that a directly elected candidate would represent the voters only. That, however, is the crucial question because it seems like people have other authorities than politicians today. The US and British system are constructed in this way and they are less popular. Party memberships are dwindling.

Considering the direct election of candidates a person like President Obama should perhaps not have been considered due to the fact that he had not run a state. Perhaps governorship should be a prerequisite? I have discussed this before. Running a campaign is not the same as running the US. In Sweden, a smaller place, 'kommunstyrelsens ordförande', a mayor position, should perhaps be better than party leader? In the US party leaders are small fish. It should be remembered though that Sweden has both a more popular leader and a more popular parliament than the US.

Someone said that we don't elect people for what they have achieved in Sweden but for what they say they will do. I think this is particularly foolish in the upcoming election where the recumbents have performed well but lag in the polls all through their term. Shouldn't there be accountability at the same time as there should be a vision of the future?

A vision of the future is difficult when part of the EU which is claimed void of consensus for visions. Sweden is operating quite well at the moment. There is not much to complain on. The vision that is claimed is that of a 'föregångsland', ie, a country that is leading the way in perhaps environmental concerns. Sweden tops the EU in environmental concerns. I would rather like to see that Sweden became a 'föregångsland' on transparency in the governing system.

What then about the governing system in Sweden? Are Anglo-America ahead of us despite the presently more popular system in Sweden? Probably they are. Our system might start to fail when the parties disappear. Something is going to become evident then. The quest in the Tea Party movement for no leadership is very interesting. Do they actually mean that everyone is going to be equal or can't they for some reason don't talk about their clandestine leaders?

In Sweden, clandestine leaders can't become public leaders and legislate without puppet MPs, as the system is currently operating. "Röstboskapen" are taking orders from below instead of from above perhaps? Well, do people know about this? According to the poll in the cited article above people don't want their leaders to be reelected. That would mean that they have not agreed to the system. Not good!