...that is to say, I agree that our system needs better mechanisms to bring home real life impact of voter decisions and party agendas, and those feedback mechanisms are dangerously clogged right now. The question for me is whether courting mass death and immiseration in rural TN is the right fix.
While that’s all true, I think it’s more that I just want Democrats to prioritize their constituents, and obviously, that will include many rural districts such as WA-03 if they gain a trifecta. And Republicans can join in, too, if they actually agree to vote for these bills instead of attacking 1/
them. The practice that needs to end is a bill including pork for districts whose politicians then simultaneously run against the bill and then show up at the ribbon-cutting. Wanting the benefits of a safety net means supporting, not undermining, the safety net. 2/2
Yes, I agree with bills prioritizing constituents - that's a part of the job of a representative in a SMD! One question, though, is which programs/expenditures are amenable to selective constituent focused expenditure w/o losing overall efficacy. Bridges, sure. Medical insurance programs? Probs not.
And yes, credit-claiming against the record (IE for projects funded by bills you voted against or programs you voted to cut) is a huge problem. But that's an electoral question, not one easily solved through policy or chamber rules. A good opponent can skewer you on negative ads about that stuff.