document: But as Mr. Hart summarized their findings , the discussion quickly centered on the dismay and disgust many voters feel about politics and government these days . The reaction in the room was one of `` deep depression , '' according to one participant . Another described it as `` combustible . '' The Hart-Bailey report found the public `` downbeat '' about the way the country is going , convinced that Washington politicians are `` more concerned with political self-preservation '' than with the public good . Average citizens , the pollsters found , believe they `` simply are not being heard in Washington , '' and more and more are losing confidence in the electoral system as a means of influencing government . Accordingly , these politicians may be in real trouble this year . The 1990 election offered some early warning signs . True , 96 % of all incumbents were re-elected . But a few days after the election , political analyst Alan Baron offered a revelation : For the first time since World War II the average re-election margin of House incumbents from both parties declined from the previous election . Normally , when Republicans have a good year , Democrats ' average victory margin declines , and vice versa . But in 1990 , voters declared a plague on both parties ' houses , underscoring what polls and other focus groups demonstrate : The disaffection with politicians is n't ideological . Voters do n't want more conservative or more liberal representation ; they want more responsive representation . This helps explain the strong momentum for limiting lawmakers ' terms , a sentiment fueled by the recent disclosures of the House banking and restaurant fiascos . Term limits would accomplish few of their proponents ' goals -- more-independentminded and less-beholden lawmakers -- and would result in many unintended consequences-far more power accruing to unelected staff and special-interest lobbyists . But that 's of little concern to frustrated voters who are lashing out because nothing else seems to work . Plainly , Congress can best address this frustration by doing a better job on the issues bothering people-health care , taxes , jobs . But there 's little consensus among either politicians or the voters themselves on these issues . So progress will be slow . Congress can make some symbolic moves , however . It can eliminate its more indefensible perquisites , such as the free prescription drugs . More important , lawmakers ought to overhaul the disgraceful campaign-finance system to make congressional elections more competitive , and to reduce the role of money and influence peddlers in campaigns . Granted , incumbents have little incentive to work against their narrow self-interest . But the threat of term limits or of electoral defeat focuses even the narrowly self-interested mind . But there also have to be more fundamental changes in Congress 's cozy arrangements . The nexus of many of the problems -- entrenched arrogance , more concern for powerful interests than average citizens and the obscene preoccupation with campaign contributions -- is the committee system . A powerful antidote would be to limit committee service , which would have few of the political and constitutional drawbacks of term limits . The case is well articulated by two of the most experienced congressional observers : Richard Fenno , a University of Rochester political scientist and author of numerous books on Congress , and Charles Ferris , an attorney who served as chief counsel to both former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and former House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill . While both men are deeply dismayed at the current state of Congress , they see term limits as a cure worse than the illness . `` Term limits really hit at democracy , '' says Prof. Fenno . Argues Mr. Ferris : `` Voters never should be prevented from electing a person who they think is the best representative of that community . '' But they see a lot of virtue in limiting committee assignments . `` This really would challenge these guys to shake up the system , '' says Mr. Fenno , noting that the power of interest groups is centered in committees . Mr. Ferris believes this would `` put a vitality in the system '' while not resulting , unlike overall term limits , in `` a bunch of neophytes who 'd be more dependent on staff and lobbyists . '' Mr. Ferris notes that the current system , in which a lawmaker gets a cherished committee assignment in his first or second term and then stays there for the rest of his tenure , breeds staleness . `` Technology and economics and world dynamics are moving so quickly , but many of these members , while very bright , are locked into outdated beliefs and approaches , '' he says . If lawmakers had to change areas of expertise every three or four terms , `` they would n't have the luxury of being intellectually lazy . '' Currently , the Intelligence committees in both houses and the House Budget Committee limit members to six or eight years . Why should n't the Commerce committees and the tax-writing and appropriations panels be subjected to the same limits ? Any loss of legislative expertise would be more than offset by new ideas , new receptivity -- new thinking . There 'd be one other incalculable benefit . This would drive the lobbyists crazy . -- Mr. Hunt is the Journal 's Washington bureau chief .
extractive_keyphrases: term limits electoral system house incumbents congressional elections average victory margin washington politicians limiting committee assignments
abstractive_keyphrases: special-interest lobbyists average re-election margin