Quote:
Wolfman77 said:
I've always disliked our 2 branch congress. I think things would flow through better with 1 branch. I do see why we have them both, large states would complain about our Senate not being equal, small states would complian about the House. But when they both write a bill that is just slightly different, mostly due to pork being added, it seems like alot of duplication. ...
|
You're making an argument for a form of government in which efficiency is a guiding principle. But divided government is specifically designed with an opposite intention: that of providing an overlapping set of checks and balances and thereby institutionalizing moderating influences on the governing of the nation, and in so doing avoid the hazards of radical change.
The Senate is a fundamentally different body, with a very different dynamic than the House.
The danger that arises when a single group or party controls all branches of government is not simply hypothetical, and having a government that is divided horizontally (legislature, judiciary, and executive) as well as vertically (federal, state, local) has provided the US with a system that can self-correct pretty well. While we historically lurch between flirtations with radicalism we typically come back to the center in the end.
I would be very concerned if all three branches of government were controlled by a single party in the US, no matter whether that party was from the left, the right, mars, venus, whatever. Divided government is a very good thing.
But it is definitely not efficient. Redundancy is one of the prices we pay for a system that is relatively durable and still largely protects local & individual rights in a very diverse country yet still with a functioning government that can get things done (but rarely as fast as people would like...and that's good)...
I'll stop babbling...
Alarik