You raise a number of interesting points. First, regarding the accuracy of the projections I made using past generic ballots results, votes and seats: these are very very crude projections, so use them with care. The projections are bounded by a rather large margin of uncertainty. As you point out, the underlying dynamics of congressional races has changed during this period. For a 40-year stretch during which Democrats controlled the House, elections to that chamber seemed less responsive to national forces and driven more by local ones. That is not the case today – national forces loom much larger. By lumping all previous races together, as I’ve done here, I tend to downplay this change.

As for reducing popular input into the selection of the president – good luck with that! To be sure, the Framers shared your sentiment regarding the general public’s relative lack of knowledge regarding candidates and policies, at least when it came to selecting the president. Hence the creation of the Electoral College which, alas, never really worked the way they intended. But norms have changed, and I’m not sure we can ever go back to a more indirect selection system.

Finally, is it the case that voters have become less patient with the President and their elected representatives? That’s a fascinating issue. My short answer is I don’t think that is true for the vast majority of the electorate, but that technology, media coverage and campaign finance rules have converged to make it appear that a small but vocal minority of voters occupying the extreme fringes of both parties actually speaks for the majority.

Relating back to our class discussion and whether or not the people can be trusted to elect a leader, it is times like this that make me think that the people should not have this privilege. Not because I think the Democratic platform is best for the people, but because clearly there is some inconsistency in general opinion. The American people seem to be to have grown too impatient to give any sitting President a fighting chance. Their inability to remove the President is where Congressional votes come in, giving the people an opportunity to voice their impatience, and causing these shifts in control of the House and the Senate.

In my opinion, the average American does not have an adequate understanding of the difficulties that come with legislating. No matter who was in office, they would not be able to snap their fingers and fix the whole world, even in the first 100 days. However, Americans simply do not have the patience for anything slower, generating these backlashes. It is hard for me to believe that any party will be able to gain longterm support in Congress, and the ever-increasing polarization between the Democrat and Republican parties is only strained by the constant shifts in control.

Maybe it wouldn’t make a difference, or maybe it would, but I would be extremely interested to the see the effects of taking the ability to elect an executive away from the populous. Undoubtedly there would be uproar from the masses, but after a few decades, I find it hard to believe that most people would miss it.