Correcting Congress

   Insanity is part of socialization.  When a parent tells a child to not look at a person with a deformity, that is telling the child to destroy information. That ignoring, or destroying, of information is psychosis.  When a child asks why not look, the child is really asking whether the parent wants the child to be psychotic.  The answer is of course yes.  That need to be psychotic is why children have such difficulty with social rules.  The sane process is to look at anything that is different, to check for threats or useful information.  Instead the child is told to do something unnatural.  The reason is that staring is what people do preparing to attack, to judge what the other person is doing and to gage the distance for a strike.  Staring risks creating a threat, so to avoid conflict, people psychotically ignore information such as deformities.Consider walking with a group of people and seeing another group to the side, each of whom is carrying a large rock or tree branch.  "Don't stare at them, it's rude."  Looking at the unusual is the first step in defense.
   The difficulty is when necessary information is suppressed.  This is what happens in social situations where one does not attack one's friends and associates.  In democratic elections, people suppress information about the candidates they favor.  Studies have shown that republicans ignore contradictions and hypocrisies of republican candidates but immediately notice them from democratic candidates, democrats do the opposite.  What everyone misses is that most of the people they are voting for are poorly socialized schizophrenics, they are psychotic.  It is fairly easy to spot, it involves looking for signs that the politician's brain is skipping.  It can be used in all social situations, as probably 10% of all people have diagnosable schizophrenia, but it provides no benefit by knowing, since the social situation remains the same.  But when electing people who decide taxes and wars it is a good idea to be a little rude.
    The signs of a brain skipping include: stiffness, woodenly responding to questions; needing to fall back to talking points, being unable to have fluid conversations; difficulty in maintaining eye contact or rigidly maintaining eye contact, both reflect a lack of feedback; attacking others to avoid answering questions; being unable to take personal responsibility, always blaming others or claiming that an intervening actor caused them to make an error;  the list goes on and it involves the typical behavior seen in politicians.
   The biggest problem is the lack of socialization, which causes the politicians to be disruptive and cause chaos.  Since people are too polite to deal with it directly, other means must be found to force politicians into socialization.  For Congress, the most direct way of doing that is to divide them into fifths and force them to stab each other in the back.  Back-stabbing is, generally, poor socialization, but having some way of showing discontent against people who act badly, is necessary to bring people into socialization.
  By forcing the house and senate to divide into fifths, the majority and minority are eliminated.  With majority rule, there is only one way to achieve a majority if members engage in party-line voting.  When divided into fifths, there are ten ways to achieve a majority, using numbers for groups:

1. 1 2 3
2. 1 2    4
3. 1 2       5
4. 1    3 4
5. 1    3    5
6. 1       4 5 
7.    2 3 4 
8.    2 3    5 
9.    2    4 5
10.       3 4 5

   Those ten combinations make it necessary to form negotiated coalitions and allows for shifting alliances.  If one group, such as the tea party, refuses to participate, thee are still four ways to achieve a majority.
   The stabbing in the back involves each member of the house or senate rating every other member on a scale of zero to ten.  This allows each member to show a sliding scale of disrespect for any members viewed as being unwilling to compromise or negotiate.
   The next step is punishment and reward.  The worst rated members would be excluded form participation in floor debates, submitting bills or participating in committees. The single highest rated member would run the chamber.  All other members would assign themselves to committees based upon their ranking, so they are rewarded for good behavior.  Committees would be formed with even numbers of people form each group, so they would have 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 members.  This would hold down to the point if one of the groups has a disproportionate number of excluded members, in which case the remaining groups would have equal additional members.  For each committee, the highest rated member of the committee would be the chair.  This means that for each chamber, and for committee, there are no guaranteed winners and no permanent losers, anyone, of any party affiliation can advance independent of any majority held by any party.  If anyone is abusive in running a committee, that person will be downrated at the next evaluation, it forces socialization, it forces all members to act well to advance.  The evaluation could be done annually.  In addition, each group could, by majority vote, expel a member from that group.
   The line for exclusion could be done by the statistical device of the standard deviation.  For 1 standard deviation, one would expect about 16% of all members would be excluded, that might be a little high.  In addition, at 1 standard deviation some members would have to excluded no matter how good everyone's conduct is.  At 1.5 deviations, about 7% would be expected to be excluded nad there is the possibility of no one being excluded.
   So far, these steps could be taken by congressional rules without a constitutional amendment.
   A further step, of rating the houses of congress by the public, to punish them into compliance would most likely require a constitutional amendment.  People would rate the house and senate separately from zero to ten.  That vote would decide the point of exclusion of members.  One method would be to do it based on half the members; so if the average rating was zero, everyone rates that house as zero, 50% of the members would have full rights; if the average rating is 5, then 75% would have full rights.  The president could also be rated to decide hiss veto point, currently it is 2/3, but if the rating is used then the rating as a percentage of ten would be used; in most situations where 0 - 10 ratings are used the average rating is about 6.5, people want to be nice and give others the benefit of the doubt, which is socialization, so the average is 6.5 instead of 5.  Under that, the presidential veto would be 65% instead of 66.7%, close enough.  But people might be nastier in politics and so rate the president lower.  Obviously, the minimum veto override in both houses would be 50%, regardless of the rating.