Should we never allow all three branches of govt. to be one

[leftyladyfrommo]

party?

I don't think our govt. was ever meant to be controlled by one party. And it likes no good can come from it. How can you possibly had a govt for the people, by the people, and have it controlled by one party - which automatically means that at least 50% of the population is not represented.

[murielm99]

1. Democrats have controlled all three branches in the past.

They did not ruin the country, though.

[movonne]

2. Yes I don't think that should ever be allowed, dems or repugs...also

I don't think the the Supreme Court should to picked by a president. we have found out all the pitfalls that can and will happen when one party has too much power.

[VaYallaDawg]

3. In theory the people are better represented when the power is divided.

However, it is a democracy, so there are many times when one party has total control. There were many years when Democrats controlled all three branches without the specter of corruption and arrogance that we now see. All the more reason to work on all your liberal friends and get them to vote in every election.

[Burning Water]

8. The power is divided

between the two houses of Congress, the judiciary, the executive branch, the state governments, which are also so divided, and the people. At least in the Constitution that's the way it is. Parties have no constitutional recognition. So it one party gets enough people to vote for them over enough number of years (or steals enough elections, if you prefer), then yeah, they can take control of the government. That's the way it's supposed to work. The constitution slows down progress, but does not eliminate it.

This was never a problem when Democrats controlled all branches of government, and it is not a constitutional problem now. It is a problem for all of us who subscribe to a different view of America than do the neo-con bastards currently in charge. But the solution is clear. Win elections. We're not going to make any changes any other way, anyway.

There's not going to be a revolution in the streets. Too many Americans are too comfortable with their own potty little lives to be interested in sacrificing themselves to make the world a better place.

The French and the UN are not going to land troops in DC in order to install an interim government and supervise legitimate elections. The UN is spineless and toothless, and the French are too busy making money.

The legal system is not going to take down the illegitimate Bush regime. Fitzmas was a fitzle. One guy, one cruddy minor little guy is all they have, and they couldn't make a charge stick on him. So they had to go to the backup of all prosecutors without a case, get them on lying. It may be years before anything comes of this, and Libby has an excellent chance of beating the rap. So how are they going to get Bush, Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld?? They're not. Not before Bush's term has expired, at any rate.

Impeachment?? Not while there is a Republican House, and no conviction if the Repukes can keep 34 seats in the Senate. A pretty safe bet.

Which brings me back to my point. We need to win elections. No more excuses about how the Repukes fight dirty, how they cheat and steal, and frighten minority voters away from the polls. No more whining about how the MSM isn't telling our side of the story. These are obstacles that must be overcome, somehow, if the Dems are ever again to regain the seats of power.

How do they do it? I don't know, but there are people paid big, big bucks to figure it out. Without some election wins, I mean wins that actually get someone sworn into office, not "more people meant to vote for X" wins, wins whose votes are counted and have more Ds than Rs wins, we are truly and totally screwed. No amount of wonderful power sharing ideas are gong to help us because without those wins they will never be enacted into law.

[VaYallaDawg]

13. Maybe you misunderstood my commentary.

Yes, I know the power is divided constitutionally among the branches of government. I was referring to the division of political power between the parties with reference to control of the branches.

And we agree that it is the responsibility of the voters to choose carefully.

[welshTerrier2]

4. i can't agree with this ...

first, let me say that i strongly agree with what is implied in the OP ... we absolutely have to ensure that a system of appropriate checks and balances among the three branches of government remains intact ...

but i can't see how we would mandate taking the power out of the hands of the American people to ensure that at least one branch is controlled by the minority party ... i think it's the wrong solution to a very legitimate problem ...

what is needed is a fresh look at how to ensure that minority parties are not excluded from the process of government ... for example, and these are just a few ideas, it is NOT OK to "fill the tree" so that amendments to proposed legislation cannot be offered by the minority party ... it is NOT OK to exclude the minority from final negotiations on a bill between the House and the Senate ... it is NOT OK to keep the deadline for votes on a bill open longer so that strong-armed tactics can be used to obtain the votes needed ...

Democrats need to remember this when they become the majority party again ... the rights of the minority party, and the millions of voters they represent, need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority ...

so, finding better mechanisms to ensure a balance of power and a system of checks and balances, and oversight, is critically important ... however, mandating that the minority party control one branch of government at all times is NOT a good way to achieve the objective ...

and one last very important point: minority parties should have the right to call hearings at any time and should have full subpoena power ...

[Hosnon]

5. I don't think it should be disallowed but it is preferable for there

to be a division.

[Burning Water]

6. Don't see how we can stop it.

It never seemed to be a problem when FDR, JFK, and LBJ were in the same party as Congress. Judges are not supposed to decide things on a partisan basis, but everybody knows that they do.

Personally, I have no problem with it. If the majority of the country selects a certain leadership, then the majority rules.

The trick, of course, is to make sure that that was the decision of the majority. It's called democracy, and sometimes the good guys don't wind up in charge.

Do you have an idea as to how we can make sure the government is not ever controlled by one party?

[Sadie5]

7. Those elected

are supposed to be working for us, and have our best interest at heart. It is certainly not as it was intended with this greedy selfish bunch of crooks in power.

[Burning Water]

9. Agreed, but

supposed to be working for us, cuts no ice, either. We have to elect people that are working for us. Besides, the elected officials most probably are working for the people who elected them, there just happen to be more Rs elected right now than Ds. Oh, you meant the American people. Sorry, Rs are Americans just as much as Ds are. And they have a vote. And they have different ideas about what needs to be done.

Despite the polls showing Bush's approval dropping like a stone, that doesn't mean conservatives are going to sit out the elections. It certainly doesn't mean they will vote for the Dems as a protest. They object to Bush not because he is too conservative for them, but because he isn't conservative enough. And he's not running anyway.

We have to appeal to the middle. Clark is the man that I think can win for the Democrats.

[sutz12]

10. Welcome to North Mexico

They had one party rule for 70 years or so. That turned out OK. :sarcasm:

[SaveElmer]

11. And exactly how would you implement such a rule...

Forbid people from voting for their candidate of choice?

[Strawman]

12. That's a better argument against winner take all elections

and for proportional representation. That way if you're a Dem in a district that is 60% Republican, you at least get some representation in the legislature.

I'm not opposed to all three branches being controlled by one party. Not in theory. I am against the fact that so many people are not represented in our current system of government.

http://www.fairvote.org/?page=718

[leftofthedial]

14. yes we should

just not repukes