OT: Test to see where you stand Morally.

[Thermodyne]

alarikf said:

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

The founders set up three branches and the intent was that each branch would limit the power of the others. They didn’t foresee that it would become an issue of two parties competing for the power regardless of governmental branch. They assumed that Senators and Congressmen would be loyal to their home states and not so heavily beholding to the party. There are some things that could be done to correct this. But it will only happen when the people demand it. First, we need to ban Pac’s and this includes the national comities of the major parties. The importation of campaign funds from out of state to influence local elections should be a crime. Then we need to ban corporate campaign donations, union endorsements etc. It’s one person, one vote; let’s leave out the graft and paybacks. After that we need to limit campaign funds to in state sources for all non presidential candidates. This should filter down all the way to the local level. A person running for member of congress in say Arkansas should not be getting campaign funds from New York or California. Just as presidential candidates should not be getting funds from China or France. Some guy running for county government should not have to sell out to the national party to get indorsed and funded. His funding should be limited to the district(s) where he is running. If we did this, then our elected officials would once again have to rely on their constituents to put them in office, instead of some large multinational money raising machine. It’s this same machine that forces them to vote the party line instead of their conscience. Diverge from the party line and find yourself unfunded in the next primary. The people on the Hill will never change the way the system works, they can’t comprehend life without the millions of dollars at stake. This has to be done by us, starting at the local level.