President Barrack Obama ran on a platform of change, but perhaps change was not his to promise. By the separation of powers in our government, the president’s power to legislate is in fact nonexistent — that power is delegated to the Congress.

The problem is that Congress no longer functions the way that the framers planned, derailing the legislative process as it was intended. The greatest challenge to change in today’s government is the nature of incumbency.

First, a government refresher course: According to Article 1, Section 1, of the Constitution, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I goes on to elaborate about the nature of each of these houses: Representatives of the House must be 25 years old and are elected every two years, while senators must be 30 years old and only one-third of the Senate must be elected every two years.

This difference in ages and election cycles manifests from the founders’ deliberate designs. The House is meant to be a regularly turned-over body of young, passionate public officials who directly represent public opinion. The more frequent election cycle allows constituents to voice disapproval of their representatives’ decisions quickly (by Constitution standards), the younger age is believed to embody a more impassioned demeanor and the power to introduce bills allows the culmination of representative position, constituent interest and passionate service to manifest in action.

The Senate on the other hand represents the moderating branch of Congress. The older age and less-frequent election cycle intend to keep the deliberation of Senators away from the ebb-and-flow of public opinion. These men and women are thought to be wiser, more reasoned and less passionate than the House, moderating their proposed bills with amendments (Article I, Section 7).

The combination of these two houses was thought to produce the most effective legislative body in the world as long as two rules were followed. The first: Representatives must be young and turned-over frequently at the will of constituents. The second: The Senate must be kept from the currents of public opinion.

The Senate demonstrates largely characteristic behavior. According to a Congressional Quarterly report, the average age of members of the Senate is 63 and the re-election rate of U.S. senators is 81.61 percent. This is not as high as the house, but high enough indeed to ensure a bit of insulation from the swings in public mood.

On the other side, if we follow the framers’ intentions, the house of representative should feature young members and a high turnover rate. According to Congressional Quarterly, however, the 111th Congress’ House of Representatives possesses an average age of 56 with a 5 five percent less than the age of 40.

Furthermore, the difference in average age between the Senate and House is only seven years. While one certainly cannot be upset with seasoned legislators running our government, the purpose of the House is to introduce fresh, upstart representatives for the inspiration of action.

Along with uncharacteristic age, the re-election rate in the House is an average of 93.35 percent since 1964. A body of older members and an insulation from national electoral trends follows the prescribed profile of the Senate more than it does the House.

So why is this a problem? Because the House was to be the branch where new ideas could enter and old ideas would exit. High incumbency rates stonewall new candidates and ideas and degrade the relationship between constituents and representatives.

Though the public was originally supposed to vote out representatives who do not serve their purpose, those running for re-election have already, in their first two years, amassed an average of $1 million more than their challengers according to the Federal Election Committee.

Increased exposure through advertising funds, along with pork barrel spending — bringing in funds for the constituents — provide a distinct advantage for incumbents over challengers. While this loyalty is understandable, it violates the intentions of the Constitution.

I would not suggest that all incumbents are bad representatives. I would, however, suggest that incumbent advantage threatens to keep new ideas and new faces from entering the national conversation as soon as they are conceived in public thought.

The House was to be a place where voters are most vociferously represented, it now represents the effectiveness of television advertising and a little product branding.

The playing field needs to be leveled. Increased interest in politics and a more informed public could help undo some of the psychological effects coupled with widespread advertising while campaign finance reform could help level the playing field for all seeking public office.

While I understand that I ask utopia from dystopia – demonstrated by the recent Supreme Court decision unfettering the coffers of corporations in elections — I believe that reformation of the system is not out of the question, as long as the public deems it vital.

Consider the implications, call your representatives and speak out if you want your government to hear you.

Ian Barker is a senior in chemical engineering from Des Moines.