The Constitution vs. the one party state.

[Perotista]

Much has been said and written about the separation of powers [administrative, legislative and judicial,] of the US republican form of democratic government. They are said to act as 'checks and balances' on each other -- a form of rocks, scissors, paper in which no single branch can reign supreme.

Comparatively little has been devoted to the way in which the Constitution can be subverted to support a one party state. We have had a single party in charge of both the administrative and legislative branches before, often for a number of presidential terms. We've remained a two party nation. Two things protected the country from a single party state: a degree of cooperation - I scratch your back, you scratch mine -- in the legislative houses and a respect, for lack of a better word, in both parties for the party neutrality of the Supreme Court.*

Given a single party in control of the administrative and legislative branches and willing to place people on the Supreme Court who will act as the party wishes, and the scene changes. Add in sufficient control of enough state legislatures to permit the party in charge of the federal mechanism to push through constitutional amendments and a single party state can emerge, all within the limits of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those interested in pursuing this concept are directed to the current situation which obtains in Poland and Hungary. Turkey is also instructive, given the religious involvement in its government.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

* Ed.: The current state of these two mighty bulwarks is well worth consideration. As a starting point, assume that a member of the Supreme Court announced immediate retirement tomorrow [ 9/1/2020]. Would the Majority Leader of the Senate of the United States wait for the election to demonstrate the 'will of the people' and put off selecting a replacement?

I have always favored divided government. I'm an old fart who remembers the Democratic control of the House for 40 straight years. Back then, I never thought the GOP would ever control the house. But that was at a time when both major parties respected each other, both would cooperate with each other, each knew the goal of both parties was a secure, free and prosperous America. Only the path to reach that goal was a bit different. It was also a time when around 75% of all Americans identified or affiliated with both major parties. Straight party line votes never happened. Perhaps because each major party had their conservative and liberal wings. The Democrats had the solid conservative south, the Republicans the old Rockefeller liberal Republican Northeast. I would imagine few will remember the Northeast being basically solid Republican with the south solid Democratic.

But since the 1990's we began and now live in the modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship. Also today, only around 55% give or take a point or two belong or identify, affiliate with the two major parties. The major parties are shrinking, probably because compromise has become a four letter word, the old game of give and take is ancient history. Both major parties view the other as their nation's number one enemy bent on the destruction of this country. Most or a majority of Americans favor compromise, but the two major parties don't.

I've never worried about one party control, because they'd work together whenever possible. Not today. Today each party doesn't push an America agenda, just their single party agenda which basically tells around to 70% of Americans to go to Hades. So how can we change that, we probably can't. I'd say only the leaders of both parties can if they want too. But they don't. Today, Republicans automatically oppose any ideas the Democrats proposed, the democrats automatically oppose any ideas the Republicans propose. No thought whatsoever is given to the merit of the idea or proposal, only who proposed it.

Only a big change in leadership of both parties can return this nation's political scene to sanity. But the leaders of both parties put their party first, few think about the country. I believe neither party knows anymore that this country is made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and those who don't give politics a single thought. I firmly believe that as long as one major party or the other destroys the other party, completely annihilates the other party, if they destroy this nation in the process, that fine with them as long as the other party gets destroyed in the process.

 

[Rich2018]

I have always favored divided government.

Do you mean "Mixed Government", not Divided ?

Perhaps because each major party had their conservative and liberal wings. The Democrats had the solid conservative south, the Republicans the old Rockefeller liberal Republican Northeast. I would imagine few will remember the Northeast being basically solid Republican with the south solid Democratic.

The Southern Democrats were Republicans in all but name though
They were conservative and racist. They shared little with mainstream Democrat policies

But since the 1990's we began and now live in the modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship. Also today, only around 55% give or take a point or two belong or identify, affiliate with the two major parties. The major parties are shrinking, probably because compromise has become a four letter word, the old game of give and take is ancient history. Both major parties view the other as their nation's number one enemy bent on the destruction of this country. Most or a majority of Americans favor compromise, but the two major parties don't.

It goes deeper than that, such is the antipathy between to two parties, there is little chance of long term consistency in policies either foreign or domestic

Trump openly bragged that, as president, he asked what Obama did and then to use his own words "did the opposite"

I must confess, that so poisonous and toxic Trump's regime was, I openly supported president Biden in undoing all the damage Trump did - as far as he could

I've never worried about one party control, because they'd work together whenever possible. Not today. Today each party doesn't push an America agenda, just their single party agenda which basically tells around to 70% of Americans to go to Hades. So how can we change that, we probably can't. I'd say only the leaders of both parties can if they want too. But they don't. Today, Republicans automatically oppose any ideas the Democrats proposed, the democrats automatically oppose any ideas the Republicans propose. No thought whatsoever is given to the merit of the idea or proposal, only who proposed it.

There's an economic model, called the Hotelling model, that explains why political parties seek the center in order to win elections:
The theory goes that peoples politics are spread left wing to right wing. If say the Democrats stake a place in the center, all those voters to their left have no choice but to vote for them (if they vote at all)
With today's GOP, wedded to Trump and stubbornly tent pegged on the right, the Dems could place themselves as a right of center party and sweep up all those slightly right wing voters while still retaining those voters on the left.

Only a big change in leadership of both parties can return this nation's political scene to sanity. But the leaders of both parties put their party first, few think about the country. I believe neither party knows anymore that this country is made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and those who don't give politics a single thought. I firmly believe that as long as one major party or the other destroys the other party, completely annihilates the other party, if they destroy this nation in the process, that fine with them as long as the other party gets destroyed in the process.

Why does the Democratic party need to change ?
In Joe Biden, the USA now has the most decent president since Carter (and with a little more public connection)
It is the GOP that has no policies, has no message other that hate and division. Is motivated by greed and lust for power. The GOP under Trump has been self destructive and appears in terminal decline

If Trump stands in 2024,with his toxic message of greed and hate, will there be any Republicans who'll dare to stand against him ?

 

[Perotista]

Divided government is the term used when one party has the presidency and the other party either the House or the senate or both. One party doesn't control the legislation process as we have now with the Democrats in control of both the house and the senate along with having the presidency. Divided government has been the term used for this ever since I was a kid growing up in the 1950's.

One can call the southern democrats what you will, but not Republicans. They were known as Yeller Dog Democrats as they would vote for an old yeller dog than vote for a Republican. These old yeller dog democrats were very loyal to the Democratic Party, it didn't matter who was the Republican nominee, they'd vote for the Democrat. The solid democratic south voted for every Democratic presidential candidate from 1868 through 1964. Goldwater won the south in 1964 and Wallace in 1968, Nixon in 1972, Nixon carried 49 of the 50 states that year, so the south was no different than the rest of the nation. 1976 the south went solid Democratic again. 1980 Georgia remained Democrats, the rest of the south went republican along with 46 other states that did the same. 1984 the south went Republican as did 49 states, 1988 Republican again as did 41 other states, 1992 and 1996 the sold south split with half going for Bill Clinton, the other half for G.H.W. Bush and then Bob Dole. These solid democratic southern states went for FDR 4 times, Truman, Stevenson over Eisenhower twice, for JFK.

I also find it interesting that Georgia remain steadily Democratic until 2002 when we elected our first ever Republican Governor and State Legislature.

The reason both parties need to change leadership is that leaders of both parties place the good of their party over the good of the nation. All are party firsters. They refuse to cooperate, compromise or whatever with the other party. Both party leaders will oppose anything proposed by the other party, not on the basis of merit, but by who proposed it. I'm sick and tired of it. If I had my way both major parties would be thrown out the window onto the trash heap of history since they only care about their party and not America as a whole. Perhaps the rise in independents reflects this as both major parties are shrinking.

In 2006 Democrats made up 37% of the electorate, the Republicans 31, independents 30%. Today the numbers are Democrats 32%, Republicans 25%, independents 41%. More and more people are becoming totally dissatisfied with both major parties. But can't do anything about it as the major parties are a monopoly on our two party system. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there's one thing both major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party will ever rise.

 

[mrjurrs]

Why do you keep harking back to the Communist Party ?
You may as well say the Republican party continues to exist

You can't ban political parties because of the economic system they support - you can only ban a political party if it openly supports the gaining of political power/goals through violence.

Actually, I think any party that Article 3 decides could be banned would be the most accurate answer.

 

[Rich2018]

Divided government is the term used when one party has the presidency and the other party either the House or the senate or both.

Oh OK - yes that can happen in a presidential style of government, not in a parliamentary style though
It is a flaw in the presidential style of government in the world's true democracies. I think only the USA and France have that constitutional flaw, (though possibly South Korea also) where you can get a lame duck president and all the political inertia that entails

One can call the southern democrats what you will, but not Republicans. They were known as Yeller Dog Democrats as they would vote for an old yeller dog than vote for a Republican.

Forgive me but you could put that same dog up as a GOP candidate in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida with the same results (maybe some other Southern states too)
If the old Southern Democrats differ from todays Republicans, in those same states, IDK what those differences are
Their policies are based on nationalism and race

I also find it interesting that Georgia remain steadily Democratic until 2002 when we elected our first ever Republican Governor and State Legislature.

I came to Georgia in 2001 and my first impression was that it was as "red" a state as Alabama. I struggled to believe it ever voted Jimmy Carter in as governor.
It looks like, finally, the tables are turning and, thanks in no small part to Stacey Abrams, there was a seismic change last year
I actually met my new congressman Carolyn Bourdeaux, at a campaign rally just before the 2018 election which she lost. I don't think I've ever met a more sincere politician with a fire in her belly to do the right thing, as her

The reason both parties need to change leadership is that leaders of both parties place the good of their party over the good of the nation.

Can you honestly give examples of Joe Biden putting the party before the nation
I can think of a multitude of examples where Trump put not his party, but himself above the needs of the nation

...they refuse to cooperate, compromise or whatever with the other party. Both party leaders will oppose anything proposed by the other party...

Well over the past four Trump years, can you really blame the Democrats for opposing Trump and the willful damage he caused to the country and its reputation overseas ?

Can you name one good policy the Republicans have had in the last 40 years ?

...if I had my way both major parties would be thrown out the window onto the trash heap of history since they only care about their party and not America as a whole. Perhaps the rise in independents reflects this as both major parties are shrinking.

Certainly the Republican party deserves that end

In 2006 Democrats made up 37% of the electorate, the Republicans 31, independents 30%. Today the numbers are Democrats 32%, Republicans 25%, independents 41%. More and more people are becoming totally dissatisfied with both major parties. But can't do anything about it as the major parties are a monopoly on our two party system. Republicans and democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there's one thing both major parties agree on, it's that no viable third party will ever rise.

I once argued on here for mandatory voting*, like the system they have in Australia
I think it would curtail extremist policies and politicians and promote a 3rd and even a 4th party.

*Mandatory voting is a bit of a misnomer as you can't actually force people to vote in a true democracy, so really it means mandatory participation while reserving the right to not actually select any candidate.

 

[Rich2018]

Actually, I think any party that Article 3 decides could be banned would be the most accurate answer.

No true democracy should ever ban a political party (unless of course it advocated violence).

 

[mrjurrs]

No true democracy should ever ban a political party (unless of course it advocated violence).

If he'd had his druther, George Washington would have stopped them. I wish we had factions, amorphous coalitions that vote how their district or state's self-interest.

 

[Perotista]

Oh OK

*Mandatory voting is a bit of a misnomer as you can't actually force people to vote in a true democracy, so really it means mandatory participation while reserving the right to not actually select any candidate.

Biden has had a long history of working across the aisle as a senator, few remember it was Biden as VP who made a deal with McConnell to end the government shutdown under Obama. I think Biden was elected in no small part due to his long history. But the Biden we have had as president isn't the Biden of yore. He is being pushed by the Democratic congress way far left that in his previous era he wouldn't have gone that far. I place a lot of blame on McConnell namely because it takes two to tango. McConnell is one that has to go. I would add Schumer to that list. It was Schumer standing next to Reid when Reid first used the nuclear option thus setting the precedence for its use. Those are Democrats by the way. Previous senate leaders, Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd wouldn't have even thought of the nuclear option let alone be the first to use it. But that was in a previous political era when there was cooperation between parties, when each party respected each other, each would work with the other through compromise and playing the game of give and take. When each party realized each party's goal was a secure, prosperous and free America That's not so today, in our modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship. Each major party views the other as this nation's number one enemy. I think if the senate leaders, examples only here as it would never happen, not in today's modern political era of party first, say a Romney and a Manchin, we'd be back to the old political era. As for Biden, I've always liked him, especially as a senator and later as VP. I voted for him, my hopes were high. But the Biden I voted for isn't the Biden we're getting. The reasons are two fold, McConnell refusing to even think about cooperating and the Democratic controlled congress also not even thinking about cooperating with anyone with an R behind his name. Biden has become a pawn in this much larger game of party first being played out. Perhaps he has no choice.


I've lived here all my life, not spent a lot of time here due to my time in the military. I'm retired. Jimmy Carter is the main reason while he was governor that Georgia hasn't had the problems Alabama and Mississippi have had. He knew times were changing and he did his best to jump Georgia ahead so we wouldn't have the problems the rest of the states did while they were dragging their feet. Jimmy is another one I voted twice for as president.

Trump, he's not loyal to anyone but himself. I can't understand how the Republican Party could fall under the seven time party switcher's spell. He has no political ideology or philosophy except to do whatever is good for himself. The country, his political party, etc. can all be danged. I have no use for him.

Mandatory voting, I hear a lot from members of both parties complain about folks voting who pay no attention to politics. who don't know the issues or stances of the candidates, etc. Democrats were complaining to the max about independents who went for Trump in 2016. Republicans now about these no nothings going for Biden. It's true, most independents don't pay much if any attention to politics until a few weeks from an election. They're too busy making ends meet, taking care of family, rooting and watching their favorite sports team and TV shows, doing other things and caring much more about other things than politics.

I've said on this site the last two elections were all about personalities when it came to independents. Personality, 2016, we had rude, obnoxious vs. aloof, elitist and a know it all. Rude and obnoxious won, barely. Fact is in 2016 the two major party candidates set the record for the lowest favorable and highest unfavorable of any presidential candidates in our history. Trump 36/60% favorable/unfavorable, Hillary Clinton 38/56% favorable unfavorable. No other major party presidential candidate had a favorable rating of 40% or lower or an unfavorable rating of 50% or higher until 2016. Barry Goldwater back in 1964 held the old record for lowest favorable at 43% and the highest unfavorable at 47% until Trump vs. Clinton. It was almost like each party went digging to find the candidate most Americans disliked and didn't the most. Both major parties succeeded.

But I'm off on a tangent there. Personality, 2020 was an election of rude and obnoxious vs. Bland, old, uninspiring, but likeable and sane, who acted like an adult and behaved as a grown up. Instead of a spoiled four year old brat with his name calling and temper tantrum throwing along with behaving like a 3rd grade schoolyard bully.

 

[Rich2018]

If he'd had his druther, George Washington would have stopped them.

What ?

I wish we had factions, amorphous coalitions that vote how their district or state's self-interest.

Then nothing would get done

All Westernized democracies have highly organized political parties

In Italy, they have proportional representation and more political parties than you would believe

List of political parties in Italy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The result is chaos.

There have been 66 Italian governments since WWII (76 years ago)
Is that what you want ?

 

[Rich2018]

Biden has had a long history of working across the aisle as a senator

I don't think so. I think Biden is his own man and wouldn't support any law/policy he didn't believe in

The Republicans are trying to spread this myth that Biden is some senile old fool and Harris is the real power
Biden is working hard
The GOP was shocked when he stated all Americans would be vaccinated by 1st May. That was beyond the wildest dreams of Trump
You don't see Biden every other day on the golf course

Republicans try to damn Biden saying he's not the real president, well under Trump there was NO president for long periods of time - including the last 5 months of his presidency

...when each party respected each other, each would work with the other through compromise and playing the game of give and take.

It's hard to play ball with today's Republicans. They are the party of Trump still
They would rather see America burn then co-operate

I think if the senate leaders, examples only here as it would never happen, not in today's modern political era of party first, say a Romney and a Manchin, we'd be back to the old political era.

This is the Mitt Romney who Republicans booed off stage recently and Trump gloated in his demise ?

As for Biden, I've always liked him, especially as a senator and later as VP. I voted for him, my hopes were high. But the Biden I voted for isn't the Biden we're getting. The reasons are two fold, McConnell refusing to even think about cooperating and the Democratic controlled congress also not even thinking about cooperating with anyone with an R behind his name. Biden has become a pawn in this much larger game of party first being played out. Perhaps he has no choice.

The Republicans won't co-operate, so what can the Democrats do ?
They have progressive policies, the Republicans offer nothing. If co-operating with the GOP meant abandoning their mandate to reform America, I'd say to hell with the GOP

I've lived here all my life, not spent a lot of time here due to my time in the military. I'm retired. Jimmy Carter is the main reason while he was governor that Georgia hasn't had the problems Alabama and Mississippi have had. He knew times were changing and he did his best to jump Georgia ahead so we wouldn't have the problems the rest of the states did while they were dragging their feet. Jimmy is another one I voted twice for as president.

I'm from England and been here since 2001. My American wife is ex USAF and I used to be a soldier once

I've only ever voted once, in 1983 for whoever it was standing for the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher. He did win as I used to live in a safe Red constituency - Red in the UK means the opposite of what it does here

Trump, he's not loyal to anyone but himself

Trump offered a platform of nationalism and racism and nothing else

Mandatory voting, I hear a lot from members of both parties complain about folks voting who pay no attention to politics...

I used to be dead against MV - if democracy is so good, I thought, why do they need to make us be democratic ?
Yes, there are probably plenty of people who'd be forced to vote, who don't currently have an interest in politics but:

1. If they were made to participate (ie: get of their asses and go to a voting station to collect a voting slip) they might develop an interest
2. There are plenty of current voters who simply check the party they always have done, yet couldn't name the congressman, senator, governor or any policies they support

I've said on this site the last two elections were all about personalities when it came to independents. Personality, 2016, we had rude, obnoxious vs. aloof, elitist and a know it all. Rude and obnoxious won, barely.

Yes, perhaps that's accurate, but I'd take arrogant and competent over ignorant and incompetent any day

2020 was an election of rude and obnoxious vs. Bland, old, uninspiring, but likeable and sane, who acted like an adult and behaved as a grown up. Instead of a spoiled four year old brat with his name calling and temper tantrum throwing along with behaving like a 3rd grade schoolyard bully.

I'd add competent to Biden's list of qualities

He's barely put a foot wrong in his presidency. Government should be bland and boring.

 

[mrjurrs]

What ?



Then nothing would get done

All Westernized democracies have highly organized political parties

In Italy, they have proportional representation and more political parties than you would believe

List of political parties in Italy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The result is chaos.

There have been 66 Italian governments since WWII (76 years ago)
Is that what you want ?

"Washington warned that the forces of geographical sectionalism, political factionalism, and interference by foreign powers in the nation's domestic affairs threatened the stability of the Republic. He urged Americans to subordinate sectional jealousies to common national interests."

U.S. Senate: Washington's Farewell Address

1851: Washington's Farewell Address -- February 22, 1862

www.senate.gov

There is a huge difference between the parliamentary system of govt and representatives actually voting on specific issues to benefit their constituency. Is there a good reason that a rep from a coastal district in CA and FL would vote differently on a coastal protection plan other than a political party?

 

[Rich2018]

There is a huge difference between the parliamentary system of govt and representatives actually voting on specific issues to benefit their constituency. Is there a good reason that a rep from a coastal district in CA and FL would vote differently on a coastal protection plan other than a political party?

Yes there is. And if every representative in the legislature formed basically their own political party - you would be left with chaos (just like the Italians with 66 governments since the end of WWII)

 

[mrjurrs]

Yes there is. And if every representative in the legislature formed basically their own political party - you would be left with chaos (just like the Italians with 66 governments since the end of WWII)

I don't see how, there's been less than 20 elections since then. In the parliamentary system, the 'legislature' picks the executive, and can remove the exec as well. I don't see factions as political parties, I see them as moving positions of self interest.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't see how, there's been less than 20 elections since then.

Italy ?
I haven't counted them, but in a parliamentary system, a new government can form without an election

In the parliamentary system, the 'legislature' picks the executive, and can remove the exec as well. I don't see factions as political parties, I see them as moving positions of self interest.

Yes, without an election

Margaret Thatcher was the British Prime Minister for the entire 1980's, yet when she lost the support of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (PCP), she lost power quickly and unceremoniously and was replaced by John Major, who won a general election two years later in 1992

There would be no consistency or discipline with mere factions, they might vote with the government one day and support a vote of "no confidence" the next
So you have to find a new government

A La Italy.

66 governments since 1945.

 

[mrjurrs]

Italy ?
I haven't counted them, but in a parliamentary system, a new government can form without an election



Yes, without an election

Margaret Thatcher was the British Prime Minister for the entire 1980's, yet when she lost the support of the Parliamentary Conservative Party (PCP), she lost power quickly and unceremoniously and was replaced by John Major, who won a general election two years later in 1992

There would be no consistency or discipline with mere factions, they might vote with the government one day and support a vote of "no confidence" the next
So you have to find a new government

A La Italy.

66 governments since 1945.

American elections (re 66 different govts).

No such thing as a vote of 'no confidence' in the American presidential system of govt. They could impeach though.

 

[Rich2018]

American elections (re 66 different govts).

It's Italy that has had 66 governments since 1945
I thought I'd made that clear in post# 84 when I said:

"There have been 66 Italian governments since WWII (76 years ago)"

No such thing as a vote of 'no confidence' in the American presidential system of govt. They could impeach though.

No, that is a parliamentary feature where the government sits inside the legislature - for example Italy.

 

[mrjurrs]

It's Italy that has had 66 governments since 1945
I thought I'd made that clear in post# 84 when I said:

"There have been 66 Italian governments since WWII (76 years ago)"



No, that is a parliamentary feature where the government sits inside the legislature - for example Italy.

You did make that clear, the point I was trying to make is that in our presidential system, there have been 20 (?) elections since 1945. So, we could have had 20 different govts, but not 66. Factions could still be a part of a two-party system, but they would be loyal to local self-interest not party ideology.

 

[Rich2018]

You did make that clear, the point I was trying to make is that in our presidential system, there have been 20 (?) elections since 1945. So, we could have had 20 different govts, but not 66.

Was that ever suggested ?

The counter point is that there would be no consistency. The Speaker of the House would change constantly
You would have chaos and it would be impossible for the president to negotiate with the legislature

Factions could still be a part of a two-party system, but they would be loyal to local self-interest not party ideology.

If you didn't have party loyalties, you wouldn't have a 2 party system, you'd have a 435 party system.

 

[mrjurrs]

Was that ever suggested ?

The counter point is that there would be no consistency. The Speaker of the House would change constantly
You would have chaos and it would be impossible for the president to negotiate with the legislature



If you didn't have party loyalties, you wouldn't have a 2 party system, you'd have a 435 party system.

How would the speaker change constantly? Factions would not be parties, they would be part of parties that are loyal to their constituents above party. Do you honestly think the R or D Party represents their constituents?

 

[Rich2018]

How would the speaker change constantly? Factions would not be parties, they would be part of parties that are loyal to their constituents above party. Do you honestly think the R or D Party represents their constituents?

Because the Speaker would have no base support he/she could count on

If congressmen were free to vote whatever way they pleased, there would be no parties

This is all moot anyway as parties would naturally form and members of those parties would follow the party line or be expelled. In practical terms, they would be "primaried"
How many independents are there in Congress, how many win in the face of a party machine ?

 

[mrjurrs]

Because the Speaker would have no base support he/she could count on

If congressmen were free to vote whatever way they pleased, there would be no parties

This is all moot anyway as parties would naturally form and members of those parties would follow the party line or be expelled. In practical terms, they would be "primaried"
How many independents are there in Congress, how many win in the face of a party machine ?

Wouldn't you say that that would make the SoH more of a leader, and thus better suited to be 3rd in succession?

True, but there would be common interests. No political parties in the Constitution, I don't see how it could work any worse than it is now.

You're probably right, please note, I started this with 'I wish...'

 

[Rich2018]

Wouldn't you say that that would make the SoH more of a leader, and thus better suited to be 3rd in succession?

No, if there were no strong party system, the Speaker would be critically weakened, unable to rely on anyone's support

If Congressmen voted individually, you would basically be relegating the Speaker to someone who simply presides over the House - like in the UK

True, but there would be common interests. No political parties in the Constitution, I don't see how it could work any worse than it is now.

You're probably right, please note, I started this with 'I wish...'

One thing that would be worse is that the president would have to cut 435 separate deals with congressmen and 100 separate deal with senators...on each and every issue
It would be chaos and nothing would ger done

Right now we need one part to control the presidency, the House and the Senate

As a quick fix, I'd shorten all senators term to 4 years and expand all congressman's terms to the same. So every 4 years would see not only the president/VP elected, but the entire House and Senate.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, if there were no strong party system, the Speaker would be critically weakened, unable to rely on anyone's support

If Congressmen voted individually, you would basically be relegating the Speaker to someone who simply presides over the House - like in the UK



One thing that would be worse is that the president would have to cut 435 separate deals with congressmen and 100 separate deal with senators...on each and every issue
It would be chaos and nothing would ger done

Right now we need one part to control the presidency, the House and the Senate

As a quick fix, I'd shorten all senators term to 4 years and expand all congressman's terms to the same. So every 4 years would see not only the president/VP elected, but the entire House and Senate.

Maybe, I see it as the SoH would have to earn the loyalty and I reject the idea that it would be chaotic in the manner you describe. When it comes to a vote, there wouldn't be 535 positions, there would be two.

Right now we do have one party controlling the presidency, House and Senate.

Unfortunately, your fix would be anything but quick...it would require a ratified constitutional amendment.

 

[Rich2018]

Maybe, I see it as the SoH would have to earn the loyalty and I reject the idea that it would be chaotic in the manner you describe. When it comes to a vote, there wouldn't be 535 positions, there would be two.

I think you mean 435, and no, Congressmen could abstain (not vote at all)
And there could / would be more than one reason to vote "No"

How could the Speaker earn that loyalty ?
It would mean a deal with each member

As I said it's all moot as parties will naturally form and to succeed as a political party, they have to be well organized and disciplined
Not all policies that are good for the country, are good for every single state

Right now we do have one party controlling the presidency, House and Senate.

Yes, and thankfully it's he Democratic party

But without that you have obstruction and political inertia

Unfortunately, your fix would be anything but quick...it would require a ratified constitutional amendment.

Yes it would, but it would be the quickest way to fix most of the problems we've discussed.

 

[Torus34]

One of the factors which drives the present federal legislative constipation may trace back to putting the lid on the old pork barrel.

Think about it and how it results in a feeling of legislation as a zero sum situation..

Regards, stay safe 'n well.