NationStates Jolt Archive

I've argued before that the best way to keep administrations partly honest (because wholly honest is a pipe dream) is to have different parties in control of the branches. A President should have a hostile (at least in part) Congress, and I'd even go so far as to say that Congress itself might be better off if the two Houses were controlled by opposite parties.

(Disclaimer: all this precludes the emergence of a third party, which, quite frankly, ain't gonna happen in the US without a major shakeup.)

My reasoning has been that if the administration and the Congress are of the same party, there's significantly less impetus to investigate wrongdoing by either side. The President controls, to some extent, the Justice Department and its apparatus (and in the current circumstance, they're cohorts in crime in the NSA scandal), and the Congress has its own investigative ability. But there are serious political repercussions to investigating your own. Thus the need for an opposition party with the ability to investigate.

But now I have some data to support my conclusion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700992.html).
In an interview last week, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, said "it's a fair comment" that the GOP-controlled Congress has done insufficient oversight and "ought to be" doing more.

"Republican Congresses tend to overinvestigate Democratic administrations and underinvestigate their own," said Davis, who added that he has tried to pick up some of the slack with his committee. "I get concerned we lose our separation of powers when one party controls both branches."

Democrats on the committee said the panel issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Department over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one last week to the Defense Department over Katrina documents.
Now, this administration has been touchier than most about oversight--they're running under the theory of the unitary executive, remember--but 1,052 to 3? That's craziness. And I have little doubt that were the tables turned, and the Democrats holding the reins of both branches, you'd see similar numbers.

So if you live in the US and are voting in November, keep this stuff in mind.

Divided government is the best government. However, at the same time we cannot simply vote for the other party simply because they are the other party; that can lead to the same problems that an undivided government would have. What we need are a group of strong Democrats with modern ideas in economic and social policy (Clinton/Gore an obvious one) that are not afraid to stand up for what they believe...anything less would be a continuation of the status quo.

True, it would have the effect of keeping both parties honest, but nothing much would get done. For that to happen, they'd have to...agree. :eek:

Wouldn't this lower competiveness between the two parties until we come to a future time with even less to distinguish between them?
A not well thought out first reaction.

I always thought it would be a good idea to give everyone 100 votes rather than just one, and then they can vote by percentages (ie, I give Kerry 67 votes because I agree with him about 67% of the time, and I give Bush 33 votes, because I disagree with Kerry 33% of the time).

I think that might result in a much more realistic election result, and it'll allow people to make it very clear whether they really like a candidate, or whether he's just the lesser of two (or more) evils.

Divided government is the best government. However, at the same time we cannot simply vote for the other party simply because they are the other party; that can lead to the same problems that an undivided government would have. What we need are a group of strong Democrats with modern ideas in economic and social policy (Clinton/Gore an obvious one) that are not afraid to stand up for what they believe...anything less would be a continuation of the status quo.
Well, what I'm thinking of has more to do with the idea that opposing forces slow down government interference and serve as a check (albeit a poor one) on corruption. For instance, if I lived in Pennsylvania, even if I didn't like Bob Casey (for his less than progressive policies), a vote for him is a vote closer to Majority Leader Harry Reid, and by extension, subpoena power for the opposition party. To be quite frank about it, I'd just as soon the real governing was done by the bureaucrats. They know their jobs better than the politicians do, after all.

Well, it's a good idea, but how would you actually get it to work? I mean, you'd end up stripping people of their right to choose their elected representatives in the process.

Wouldn't this lower competiveness between the two parties until we come to a future time with even less to distinguish between them?
A not well thought out first reaction.
Ideally, it would force compromise between the extreme factions of both parties and would cause a revival of true moderate dealmakers.

Well, it's a good idea, but how would you actually get it to work? I mean, you'd end up stripping people of their right to choose their elected representatives in the process.
What I'm talking about isn't something I could force--it's more a philosophy that I'm espousing, trying to get people to buy into. I'd never suggest stripping people of the right to choose their representatives.

I always thought it would be a good idea to give everyone 100 votes rather than just one, and then they can vote by percentages (ie, I give Kerry 67 votes because I agree with him about 67% of the time, and I give Bush 33 votes, because I disagree with Kerry 33% of the time).
Isn't that similar to tiered voting, where candidate A gets my #1 preference, candidate B gets my #2 preference, etc.

Isn't that similar to tiered voting, where candidate A gets my #1 preference, candidate B gets my #2 preference, etc.
Sorta, but more accurate and easier to understand.

Well, what I'm thinking of has more to do with the idea that opposing forces slow down government interference and serve as a check (albeit a poor one) on corruption. For instance, if I lived in Pennsylvania, even if I didn't like Bob Casey (for his less than progressive policies), a vote for him is a vote closer to Majority Leader Harry Reid, and by extension, subpoena power for the opposition party. To be quite frank about it, I'd just as soon the real governing was done by the bureaucrats. They know their jobs better than the politicians do, after all.

Well, that's where you have to do a comparison; will getting the Democrats in to power produce the policies I want even though I am voting Democrat for someone who does not represent those policies? If the answer is yes (which I would say with some certainty that it is), then you should probably make the ideological sacrifice and vote for Casey.

However, then you run the risk of actually affecting the party's ideology; if a large number of people vote for Republican-lite candidates and they win, it could shift the party rightward and actually have a negative impact on the party's actions.

Bureaucrats do run the government; other than the highest level posts, I'd say that a good 80% or more of Federal employees have been in their positions under more than one administration and party. Not to mention the employees all have their own political ideas, and they will try to change decisions from above as much as they can to suit them. That's why, for all of their political maneuvering, the party in power can almost never affect the real workings of the government.

Well, that's where you have to do a comparison; will getting the Democrats in to power produce the policies I want even though I am voting Democrat for someone who does not represent those policies? If the answer is yes (which I would say with some certainty that it is), then you should probably make the ideological sacrifice and vote for Casey.

However, then you run the risk of actually affecting the party's ideology; if a large number of people vote for Republican-lite candidates and they win, it could shift the party rightward and actually have a negative impact on the party's actions.

Bureaucrats do run the government; other than the highest level posts, I'd say that a good 80% or more of Federal employees have been in their positions under more than one administration and party. Not to mention the employees all have their own political ideas, and they will try to change decisions from above as much as they can to suit them. That's why, for all of their political maneuvering, the party in power can almost never affect the real workings of the government.
I've certainly voted that way before. I was no great fan of Mark Pryor in Arkansas, and would have loved a more progressive candidate, but the alternative was Tim Hutchinson, a conservative Republican, and a vote (at the time) for Majority Leader Trent Lott. The vote pushed my party a little to the right, but it also helped keep the Senate close for a little longer.

But in a race like we're seeing in Texas for the House, a primary fight between Ciro Rodriguez, a progressive, and Henry Cuellar, a Democrat so conservative the Blue-dog coalition turned down, I've got to go with the progressive. Either person will vote for Pelosi for Speaker of the House, but Rodriguez is more in line with my thinking.

I told you I have this governing shit under control. Let me handle it.

I've argued before that the best way to keep administrations partly honest (because wholly honest is a pipe dream) is to have different parties in control of the branches. A President should have a hostile (at least in part) Congress, and I'd even go so far as to say that Congress itself might be better off if the two Houses were controlled by opposite parties.

The only thing I might add is that we really need to make Congress more active in concurring with Presidential Proclamations, i.e. Executive Orders. I never realized the extent of an EO, until I read a statement by Paul Begala. It was something like "... stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool ..." We don't need any President to have the unrestrained authority that EOs give them.

Ideally, it would force compromise between the extreme factions of both parties and would cause a revival of true moderate dealmakers.
In the ancient past (before 1980) It was routine to pass bills by at least 60%. With the coming of the extremists and one party government, congress only tries for 50.001%. There is a feeling that compromise means making a deal with the devil (literaly). The extremes feel the other side is evil. This has continually cut out the most reasonable people--those in the middle.

The only way to again unite the people will be to bring back the strength of the middle by either saying we won't vote until we get them (as in the past) or more likely, split government.

The only thing I might add is that we really need to make Congress more active in concurring with Presidential Proclamations, i.e. Executive Orders. I never realized the extent of an EO, until I read a statement by Paul Begala. It was something like "... stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool ..." We don't need any President to have the unrestrained authority that EOs give them.While we're at it, we might tell Congress they need to get their shit together when it comes to wars. No more of this "use of force resolution" crap--it's a war or it isn't, damnit. It's Congress's job to declare war and it's time they started taking responsibility for it.

Along the lines of the EO issue, this "presidential signing statement" crap is bullshit also, and Alito ought to be smacked just for suggesting it. Instead, he's on the Supreme Court.

I always thought it would be a good idea to give everyone 100 votes rather than just one, and then they can vote by percentages (ie, I give Kerry 67 votes because I agree with him about 67% of the time, and I give Bush 33 votes, because I disagree with Kerry 33% of the time).

I think that might result in a much more realistic election result, and it'll allow people to make it very clear whether they really like a candidate, or whether he's just the lesser of two (or more) evils.
Most people would just give one hundred votes to one side or the other, probably based on who they think gives better speeches.

Most people would just give one hundred votes to one side or the other, probably based on who they think gives better speeches.
Well, that's their choice. Eventually people might wise up that they'd have a much better tool to tell politicians whether or not they're any good.

Well, that's their choice. Eventually people might wise up that they'd have a much better tool to tell politicians whether or not they're any good.
And a system like tiered voting would open up the ballot for third parties, which is why it'll never happen large scale in the US.

The big change would be if we would have a law that says each person running can only spend one dollar for each vote cast for the office in the previous election.

It would force them to actually go out and meet the people rather spending 90% of their time getting paid off so they can give 10 second sound bites and 30 second commercials. They would also encourage more people to vote since for every vote they would get a dollar to spend next time. And if you didn't like either of them, a "not voting" would cut their funds for next time.

What we need are a group of strong Democrats with modern ideas in economic and social policy (Clinton/Gore an obvious one) that are not afraid to stand up for what they believe...anything less would be a continuation of the status quo.


I guess I missed just what clinton/gore stood for--what was that, free sex in the oval office? Letting extremists nearly sink American ships? I don't recall which was his top priority.

I guess I missed just what clinton/gore stood for--what was that, free sex in the oval office? Letting extremists nearly sink American ships? I don't recall which was his top priority.
It's bad enough you're trolling up other threads (in a very unoriginal way, I might add) but now you've got to come into mine? Begone, child! There is no place for you here!

...free sex in the oval office?
As opposed to in return for campaign contributions?

Letting extremists nearly sink American ships?
Well, I guess it's better than letting extremists fly planes into the WTC. But then again, that wasn't Bush's fault.

I don't recall which was his top priority.
You're 13, hey? Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton#Presidency