An indirect, or representative democracy, is the system of government used in the US. As a representative democracy, we the citizens do not (generally, but there are a few exceptions) vote on laws directly; rather, we vote on representatives to make laws for us. In other words, in a direct democracy (or classic democracy) citizens vote directly on laws, but in an indirect democracy, citizens vote ONLY on representatives who then vote on laws.

This was a relatively difficult question. In order to answer it, you have to remember what pork-barrel legislation is, and how Congressional politics combined with constituent pressure make it logical to produce pork.

Pork-barrel legislation is, in short, a narrowly targeted program or expenditure that directly benefits one politician’s constituency, but which is paid for by the entire country. In other, more concrete terms, imagine that you were a congresswoman (or man) and that your constituency wanted a new rec center in town. It would be a political ‘win’ for you, because not only would your constituents get a new rec center, but you’d be able to employ local contractors to build it! If, however, it is federally funded, it means that your constituents aren’t the only ones paying for it—everyone in the nation is.

Now, as for the “logical” part: because each politician must pander to their constituency (in order to get reelected), pork makes sense; it’s the most direct and visible way to reward a faithful constituency, and moreover, the cost is shared among all Americans. The problem is that every congress member sees the advantage—hence widespread pork.

While opponent candidates are usually weak, especially in terms of adequate qualifications, they are actually most vulnerable when aspiring to the House of Representatives. Incumbent House members are even more likely to be successful in their reelection bids than are their counterparts in the Senate, most likely due to the strong party ties and two year terms that govern the House. Opponents who are seeking to steal away a seat from underneath a sitting House representative face a very arduous task. Challengers do not enjoy much voter visibility, free media coverage, or already earned goodwill among their constituent base and so must battle against an incumbent who is significantly better equipped from the very beginning.

Most Senators and Representatives hold law degrees, with a great many having practiced as lawyers. Other highly common professions include business and academia, but it would certainly be fair to term Congress a “lawyer’s club.” This prevalence can best be explained by the complimentary natures of politics and legal affairs, subjects whose contents often reinforce and give credence to each other. The flexible schedule and high salary which lawyers typically enjoy also come in handy for aspiring Congress men and women, as does the monetary support often provided to political candidates by law firms.

While Congress men and women naturally seek to authentically represent their constituents’ interests, they do not seem to be allowing these opinions to guide their policy votes any more than is historically usual. Every single Senator and representative comes face to face with this most classic of Congressional dilemmas: how best to balance their own political beliefs against the urgings of the voters to whom they owe their position. Most times, members make their choices on an issue-by-issue basis, weighing the virulence (or lack thereof) of the voters against party leaders’ pressures and their own leanings. Often, representatives and Senators hold many beliefs in common with the people in their districts, of which they themselves of course are a product, but this is not always the case. Strict adherence to constituents’ desires most often results when an issue is easily understood and highly visible, whereas those policies that are poorly comprehended by the public, require specialized and/or insider information, or are otherwise quite complicated are usually ultimately decided by the Congress person’s own opinions.

While it is indeed sometimes possible for an incumbent candidate to ride the sitting President’s coattails to electoral victory, overall this tactic is hardly ever successful. Whether employed by a Senator or a House representative, the odds of coattail campaigning proving effective are slim to none. This grim reality may seem surprising at first but a few key factors help explain its unlikelihood. Firstly, in order for the “coattail theory” to work, the sitting President and the Congressional incumbent must be from the same political party. Even if this first condition is met, it is very difficult for an incumbent, whether from the Senate or House, to lay claim to any significant part of a President’s popular initiatives. Sole credit is nearly impossible to establish and so any candidate’s attempts in this regard are overwhelmingly ignored by voters. In some cases, the “coattail strategy” can even backfire against an incumbent, as voters take these assertions as proof of a candidate’s desperation and/or false pretensions.

There is, in fact, a bias against action in Congress—in other words, it’s much easier to kill a bill than it is to get one passed. Logically speaking, this makes sense—it should be harder to pass a bill than it is to kill it, that way frivolous laws don’t get passed. Procedurally speaking, this is correct because there are many opportunities for a bill’s opponent to destroy a bill, whereas there is only one of two ways to get a bill passed (signed by the President or a veto override by Congress). 

It is often believed that the President of the United States declares war. While the President may announce that war has been declared, because the President acts with the consent of Congress in the matter of war, s/he must first go to the Congress of the United States in a joint session and ask for the declaration of war.