Do you prefer divided government?

[Carjosse]

I suppose that depends on what things you want done.

A government should be bale to function and pass things like needed legislation, budgets, you know things needed to govern a country with any sort of effectiveness.

 

[radcen]

A government should be bale to function and pass thing like needed legislation, budgets, you know things needed to govern a country with any sort of effectiveness.

Yes, in theory. Problem is when all are on the same side things go too far. You lose checks and balances, so you can easily get runaway legislation.

 

[Carjosse]

Yes, in theory. Problem is when all are on the same side things go too far. You lose checks and balances, so you can easily get runaway legislation.

You still have checks and balances, you have a strong court system. They also have to keep public interest in mind, if they truly pass runaway legislation they will lose public support which is death to a political party. A government should be able to function, at the bare minimum pass a budget. A government that cannot pass a budget is not a government, that is why in other countries failing a budget vote means defeat of the government.

 

[radcen]

You still have checks and balances, you have a strong court system. They also have to keep public interest in mind, if they truly pass runaway legislation they will lose public support which is death to a political party. A government should be able to function, at the bare minimum pass a budget. A government that cannot pass a budget is not a government, that is why in other countries failing a budget vote means defeat of the government.

The court system rubber stamps more often than it strikes down.

They do have to keep the public in mind, I agree. And they never seem to learn the lesson. In my lifetime I have observed a swinging back and forth of which party is in power and it almost always stems from this. They get power, they get all giddy and run away with themselves, they piss off the public, they lose power (and wonder why). Then, the other party does the same thing... back and forth, rinse and repeat.

 

[fmw]

I would prefer the Congress match the president, then things might have a slight chance of being done.

I prefer having the president and congress be of opposing parties to prevent things from being done.

 

[Kreton]

What do you guys think about divided govt?

Independent/other president independent/other congress.

Keep all the freaking dems and repub out.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A government should be bale to function and pass things like needed legislation, budgets, you know things needed to govern a country with any sort of effectiveness.

But in a government with separation of powers one branch does not exist to simply rubber stamp the other, otherwise you would only need one branch

 

[Ikari]

What do you guys think about divided govt?

I like to have all the branches fighting each other, that way it's not quite the superhighway to government growth. Theoretically a divided government could only pass that which is necessary to pass.

 

[jamesrage]

What do you guys think about divided govt?

I prefer a divided government when a liberal is president and I prefer a conservative president and a conservative congress.

 

[haymarket]

The great periods of advancement in progressive legislation were under FDR when we had big numbers in Congress.

We need that again.

Its sad that Obama wasted those numbers in his first two years. That will forever be his albatross around his neck.

 

[tres borrachos]

I chose "Republican President, Democratic Congress" but knowing this year, that could mean Trump in the Oval Office and a bunch of assholes in Congress. So I should have thought that one through...it may actually happen, doG help us all.

Normally, yes, I do prefer a divided government. I actually think it was good when it was Clinton and the GOP working together. He kept them in check, they kept him in check. A fully controlled government by one party is not a good thing, IMO.

 

[Cyrylek]

Considering the current state of affairs, Democrat (Hillary) as President and a strong (veto-overriding) Republican majority in both House and Senate would be the best.

 

[Gaius46]

A government should be bale to function and pass things like needed legislation, budgets, you know things needed to govern a country with any sort of effectiveness.

Divided government has been able to pass legislation in the past. You know the good old days 30 years ago when each side didn't spent most of their time demonizing the other.

Passing a budget and dealing with foreign relations is pretty much all I want the federal government to do.

 

[Patrickt]

If I were rewriting the system, I would not have an elected President. The president was never intended to be a king or a tyrant or a dictator, elected or not. He was to be a manager of the government under the direction of Congress. His only real authority was in foreign affairs.

I would have a system where the minority party in the Senate picked a president and could replace the president at will. Our worst times have been, in my opinion, when both houses of Congress and the Presidency were in the hands of one party.

 

[Rentoc]

Firstly there needs to be term limits on EVERYONE. That would solve a lot of the problems. The people that are in the Senate and House now mostly do everything they can to stay there and amass power, influence and money. Some (from both parties) are decent people, but there are far too many that do nothing but pander to certain groups in order to remain in office and not have to do REAL work.

This, of course, will never happen because those in power will not do anything to jeopardize their ability to retain power.

 

[radcen]

Firstly there needs to be term limits on EVERYONE. That would solve a lot of the problems. The people that are in the Senate and House now mostly do everything they can to stay there and amass power, influence and money. Some (from both parties) are decent people, but there are far too many that do nothing but pander to certain groups in order to remain in office and not have to do REAL work.

This, of course, will never happen because those in power will not do anything to jeopardize their ability to retain power.

If Senators and House Representatives no longer have to run for continuous re-election, will they be more noble, or will they amass what they can in the short time they can?

Term limits for the House and Senate will make things worse. Why do we believe that noble and honest candidates are going to magically appear out of the woodwork? No, it's still going to be the party apparatus pulling strings and influencing things, and people in office will see a short time span to get what they can and they will maximize that opportunity.

The only way to get noble people into office is for the voters to elect noble people.

 

[Caine]

I would prefer the Congress match the president, then things might have a slight chance of being done.

I don't want things to be done. The more the government "does" the more it gets in the way.

 

[Caine]

Funny I seem to remember bushcare and a growing govt with when bush was in power with a gop congress.

And he was wrong too.

What do you have now partisan-boy?