I have an idea that needs to be ridiculed and shot full of holes...

[Javaman]

First a qualifier: this idea would need a major act of congress to happen and we all know how likely that is.

Okay, here it is:

I came up with a new and novel way to vote or select our reps for the house of representatives.

the people running for the office of representative can only run if they represent the per capita median income of their district, plus or minus 5K and must show their tax returns for the previous 5 years to prove it.

I know this is entirely impossible but it's more of a thought experiment.

comments? ideas? expand on it?

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Don't Like The +/-5k Part, Java

Too restrictive i think. I live in a district where, because it's aging, and/or rural, the median income is only around 55k. Yet, there are good, community minded people i know who make 60 to 80% more than that for whom i would cast a vote in a heartbeat. I make easily more than 2X that, and i wouldn't be a legislator who's first instinct is to find a way to let people suffer. (Like my current lying congressperson.) So, i don't think in these typical strata of income that making 5k more than the median obviates the compassion needed to be a good, progressive legislator.

[Abq_Sarah]

2. It might make for better representation

But you'll never get the millionaires in Congress to sign on to that. States, on the other hand, can set further qualifications per the Constitution.

[NCTraveler]

3. No thank you.

I don't believe in taking away peoples right to run for office. I also don't think such an approach would improve anything. Wouldn't that mean that in Cummings district someone wouldn't be able to run for his seat if they made more than 57,000?

I live just about paycheck to paycheck and think that would take me out of the running in my district.

I might be reading your wrong. Wouldn't be the first time my reading skills failed me.

[MindPilot]

4. I have thought along similar lines

In my scenario representatives are "drafted" similar to jury service. People chosen basically at random would serve a 1-year term. They would be-well compensated for the disruption in their daily lives, and jobs would be held until their term expires.

[jberryhill]

5. Yeah, we've had enough Kennedy and Roosevelt types in office

Is that the idea?

[MindPilot]

7. Well, the current system seems to produce results that trend downward.

my position is politicians are like soldiers and cops in that some one who wants to be one probably shouldn't.

[WillowTree]

6. That wouldn't just take an act of Congress. It would need a Constitutional Amendment.

Eligibility requirements are outlined in the Constitution. You would need a constitutional amendment to change or add to those requirements. Not likely to happen.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

8. Would this exclude more Democrats or Republicans?

I'm still learning about the local pols here in WA state, but in the SF Bay Area were I lived for 26 years, many prominent Dems (Rep Nancy Pelosi, for example) seemed to be filthy rich.