NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I saw the thread about Dems showing their backbone, and I posted I hoped that they'd be able to come across as a viable majority party in '06 and win one house of Congress, just for the simple reason that I believe in divided government.

I believe divided government promotes compromise, and reduces spending. It is very useful in reducing deficits (look at the Clinton years) and maintaining a smaller size of government.

In the two party system of the US, I'd say divided government is the best option.

What do you think?

I believe divided government promotes compromise, and reduces spending. It is very useful in reducing deficits (look at the Clinton years) and maintaining a smaller size of government.

As opposed to the divided government of the Reagan years with record deficits?

As opposed to the divided government of the Reagan years with record deficits?
The Reagan years don't totally fit the mold, as the US was undergoing a major military buildup to challenge the USSR, and the beginning of the change of the government from the welfare state to what it is now also occured then. And as a result, deficits were high.

But I believe that now we can pull off the divided government trick quite nicely.

A divided government does lead to compromise sometimes, other times it leads to stagnation with bills being bounced backwards and forwards.
It all depends on the leaders of the parties involved. If they are stubborn and insist that the other lot are no good <insert derogatory phrase here> enemies of the state. Then no compromise will be made.
If the leaders are more pragmatic then it can be a good thing.

More than two significant parties nearly always ends up with some minority group being empowered as the deciding factor in a coalition. Here in Brazil we have some twenty parties, with maybe six significant parties amongst them. This leads to the left wing PT in a power sharing alliance with the right wing PFL to obtain a majority. How does a voter vote in these circumstances. The manifestos of parties will not be enacted as they are negotiated away to obtain power. The voter is left to vote on personality, not policies, and when this is combined with compulsory voting, what you get is electoral smear campaigns, and no political discussion whatsoever.

A three party system may work, but try to keep it limited to this. More than three and politics ceases to have anything to do with policies.

I think we need more major parties to choose from. Republicans and Democrats have essentially made it near impossible for a 3rd party to hold any office larger than local positions, so we should definitely relax the laws set in place that create that.

Seriously, when voting, you have the choice of a turd sandwich or a douchebag(thanks south park). I would much rather have the viable option of voting for the best candidate as opposed to the lesser of two evils.

A three party system may work, but try to keep it limited to this. More than three and politics ceases to have anything to do with policies.

I don't think that a 3-party system will help all that much. I use Israel as an example. Since it's birth, it's had 3 major parties: left-wing Labor, right-wing Likud, and a religious party whose name I am currently forgetting. Generally, it ends up being roughly 40% Labor, 40% Likud, and 20% religious. One of the two major parties makes a deal with the religious party to get a majority and form a government. The major party is free to do what it wants until it conflicts with the religious party, where it gives in or faces a meltdown of its government. The tail wags the dog. Which is why I am so surprised that Sharon has gotten the deal through to get out of the West Bank and the Gaza. The strongly religious ones are the ones who are most strongly for keeping it.

The Reagan years don't totally fit the mold, as the US was undergoing a major military buildup to challenge the USSR, and the beginning of the change of the government from the welfare state to what it is now also occured then. And as a result, deficits were high.

But I believe that now we can pull off the divided government trick quite nicely.

I'll grant the military build up, but if we're not a welfare state now, then what are we?

I'll grant the military build up, but if we're not a welfare state now, then what are we?
We are a lower level of welfare state than when we were at during the 1970's and the like. We're still stepping down, but the steps aren't as costly as they were back then.

Given the usual options it's often better to have those in elected positions trying to gut one another, rather than having them conspire to screw the rest of us.

Yes, but divisions will always exist. As the Republicans become more powerful, for example, factions will become more pronounced. The party may even break apart, like what the Democrats were close to doing a few times. Only in times of national crises do political divisions seem to wither away.

I don't think that a 3-party system will help all that much. I use Israel as an example. Since it's birth, it's had 3 major parties: left-wing Labor, right-wing Likud, and a religious party whose name I am currently forgetting. Generally, it ends up being roughly 40% Labor, 40% Likud, and 20% religious. One of the two major parties makes a deal with the religious party to get a majority and form a government. The major party is free to do what it wants until it conflicts with the religious party, where it gives in or faces a meltdown of its government. The tail wags the dog. Which is why I am so surprised that Sharon has gotten the deal through to get out of the West Bank and the Gaza. The strongly religious ones are the ones who are most strongly for keeping it.

However with just a three party system, it is possible to get some laws or actions through, and you can have some idea of what you are voting for.
In the Israel case, Labour and Likud could temporarily unite to pass something through against the desires of the religious group. This something would have to be something that Labour and Likud agree on (This may be the way Sharon has managed it). Three is just about manageable, it has worked in the UK, although the Lib Dems are rather meaningless most of the time, they do occasionally prevent extremism from arising.

A three party system does depend on the nature of the third party:
moderate, it is an anti abuse safeguard;
extremist, it abuses democratic principles.

The best government is an absolute monarchy led by a visionary. Its unified and the best for the nation as the whole is the rule rather than political agendas.

The best government is an absolute monarchy led by a visionary. Its unified and the best for the nation as the whole is the rule rather than political agendas.

Until his pain-in-the-neck son shows up. Hence, Marcus Auralius (sp?) and Comedus (sp?).

I want to see a return of multiple parties to REAL power. Hopefully this will keep countries from becoming so polarized in politics.

I know it ain't gonna happen though... :(

Divisions are good. Otherwise, you have the Bush administration, which just supports him in his decisions all the time, instead of instigating an argument and showing that not everyone will agree with the decision, and it may be better not to take the action. This is all in The Prince, by the way. :rolleyes:

Suprise... I voted that we could use a third party.