Shared Political Power?

[richiebaseball]

Should Republicans or Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress or should that power be shared?

 

[Charade]

Oh now isn't that interesting. As of right now there are 3 votes for a full Democratic control and 3 votes for no party should control all three.

 

[Charade]

I'd like to know why someone would pick one party (or the other) should control all 3 branches.

 

[richiebaseball]

Oh now isn't that interesting. As of right now there are 3 votes for a full Democratic control and 3 votes for no party should control all three.

It's a bit early to be calling this one. Besides, it's kinda late at night. R's are probably in bed. Gotta get up early and disenfranchise voters don't ya know.

 

[Tiziminchac]

I went all Republican. That's how I feel about it. And I don't really care how anybody else feels about it.

 

[richiebaseball]

I'd like to know why someone would pick one party (or the other) should control all 3 branches.

Comments are certainly welcome.

 

[GeorgeG]

I voted for shared. I'm beginning to think both parties have gone way too far right and left and we need to get a lot of middle ground covered. Maybe some serious party reform is in order as well.

 

[basas]

I went all Republican as well.

But if it's shared among two parties, it's not all bad. Just be glad you don't have 4 major parties like we have up here. NOTHING gets done because everyone is scared of upsetting another party and having an election called! (We've had minority governments for awhile meaning an election every 12-18 months basically). The situation up here is NOT good.

 

[richiebaseball]

I voted for shared. I'm beginning to think both parties have gone way too far right and left and we need to get a lot of middle ground covered. Maybe some serious party reform is in order as well.

And the truth shall set you free!

 

[eclectics]

I'd like to know why someone would pick one party (or the other) should control all 3 branches.

After coming out of 6 years of total one party rule, I can certainly see the inclination to go all Democrat, cant you? It's simply human nature to want the exact opposite of what you consider to be a less than optimum situation (to put it mildly). Not saying I particularly agree, but I certainly can understand it. Nothing wrong with shared power in my book. I'll go one further. I think a truly enlightened President might be well served to have some of his cabinet sprinkled with qualified people of the opposite persuasion, including even the VP, if both P and VP were moderate enough.

 

[Charade]

After coming out of 6 years of total one party rule, I can certainly see the inclination to go all Democrat, cant you? It's simply human nature to want the exact opposite of what you consider to be a less than optimum situation (to put it mildly). Not saying I particularly agree, but I certainly can understand it. Nothing wrong with shared power in my book. I'll go one further. I think a truly enlightened President might be well served to have some of his cabinet sprinkled with qualified people of the opposite persuasion, including even the VP, if both P and VP were moderate enough.

I guess that's how we felt in 94 and for 30 or so years before that whenever there was a Dem in the WH.

 

[NewJersey]

A one party controlled DC is never a good thing.

 

[eclectics]

I guess that's how we felt in 94 and for 30 or so years before that whenever there was a Dem in the WH.

Don't forget the Eisenhower years kind of broke things up for you a bit , plus, in all fairness, both parties were a tad more centrist and moderate compared to today, so it wasn't quite so much of a polarizing difference as it is right now.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Shared control..
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

 

[N.Bailey]

I will get flamed for this, but I have thick skin, so here goes.

As a Republican, I always thought the Clinton had a pretty good presidency because the Democrats didn't hold the majority in the Congress. It makes everyone work harder toward compromises.

That's probably my peeve with the Bush administration. There are little to no compromises. I feel like Bush is a one man show all others be damned.

I've also always thought it would be nice if we had 2 presidents. One for domestic policy and one for our foreign policy. I'd vote Republican for foreign policy and a Democrat for domestic issues (for the most part, but yeah, I'd need to hear where everyone stands - this was not meant as a blanket statement). I know there are probably a million and 1 reasons why this wouldn't work, but I really prefer the "can do" attitudes who would make it work. We know our Constitution wasn't created overnight. It was VERY difficult to reach a solution that would not only (at the time, not defending it) protect southern states the right to slavery, but also guarantee that smaller states would have some rights so the bigger states didn't walk over them. Remember, RI never even sent a single delegate for this reason. If our founding fathers could reach a solution, I'm sure we can do the same now.

 

[richiebaseball]

Shared control..
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Term limits. They don't have to be law for them to happen. Don't keep voting the same ones in. There should be no such thing as a "career politician". Next time the primaries come around, take a long look at the other guys/gals running against that incumbent.

 

[salmoneous]

NOTHING gets done because everyone is scared of upsetting another party and having an election called!

Some of us feel a government where nothing gets done is better than what we have today.

 

[JimB.]

I do not vote for my elected representatives based on the overall makeup of Congress or the Executive Branch. I vote for the person, not the party. To do otherwise is foolhardy & irresponsible (IMHO). I don't think it makes sense to think "national" while voting "local".

If that were the case, I'd be voting for Katherine Harris for Senate.

 

[Chicago526]

I'm a Dem and put "shared control". Things worked well for the most part under Clinton, the R majority kept Clinton from going too far to the left, and the R's had to make sure they sent bills to Clinton that he'd be willing to sign, thus keeping them from going to far to the right. Same under Regan, the Dems kept Regan more moderate than he may have been with a Republican congress.

I'm a bit ticked with the Dems, though. Yes, they have been the monority party for 6 years, but not by all that much. They should have kicked up a bigger fuss over a lot of issues than they did. Too many were affraid to be called "unpatriotic" or have other nasty things said about them. A legitamate fear, but they should have sucked it up and done it anyway.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I voted for shared. I don't trust either party enough to give them full control. I have real concerns about the extremes on the right and the left.