This House believes that the governance of the United States should be split between the two major U

By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies.

Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power.

Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.”[1]

[1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789,  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html

Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court.

In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no matter how powerful a party is it will still have to face presidential elections in at most four years’ time and elections in the house within two years. A single partly government will therefore not have long to take advantage of their weak opposition.

Even in congress supermajorities - the high threshold required for a filibuster proof majority – are rare; 60 out of 100 senators which before 2009 had not happened since 1979 and previously 1937 means that congress will still be a check.[1] This along with the ideologically fractured nature of the two major parties forces the executive to compromise with Congress and the opposition to provide a policy which is the best for the electorate.

[1] Tumulty, Karen, ‘A Filibuster=Proof Majority’, Time, 28 April 2009, http://swampland.time.com/2009/04/28/a-filibuster-proof-majority/

The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”[1]

This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will.

Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans.

[1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling.[1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party.

[1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/26/us-debt-crisis-talks-impasse

Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law.[1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law.[2]

This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people.   

[1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196

[2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’, http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/reconciliation_process.htm

Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation.

Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it.

Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus.[1]

There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party.[2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties.    

[1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc

[2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government accessed 30/1/12

Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventing compromise and leading to gridlock. In some extreme cases a complete shutdown of the federal government has been forced due to the impasse, such as in 1995 when Clinton was unable to work with an obstinate Republican Congress.[1]

While Reagan was able to use his co-operation with House Democrats to great effect in pushing through policy and gaining re-election.[2] Clinton was re-elected by showing himself as the only one prepared to compromise compared to the dogmatic Republicans, merely continuing the Partisan mode of campaigning the Proposition hopes would end through divided government.[3]

[1] ‘1995-96 Government Shutdown’, Slaying the Dragon of Debt, http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/governmentshutdown.html

[2] Faler, Brian, ‘Reagan’s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero’, Bloomberg, 22 July 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html

[3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Lessons from the great government shutdown of 1995-96’, The Washington Post, 25 February 2011, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_great_governm.html

By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies.

Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power.

Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.”[1]

[1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789,  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html

Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court.

In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no matter how powerful a party is it will still have to face presidential elections in at most four years’ time and elections in the house within two years. A single partly government will therefore not have long to take advantage of their weak opposition.

Even in congress supermajorities - the high threshold required for a filibuster proof majority – are rare; 60 out of 100 senators which before 2009 had not happened since 1979 and previously 1937 means that congress will still be a check.[1] This along with the ideologically fractured nature of the two major parties forces the executive to compromise with Congress and the opposition to provide a policy which is the best for the electorate.

[1] Tumulty, Karen, ‘A Filibuster=Proof Majority’, Time, 28 April 2009, http://swampland.time.com/2009/04/28/a-filibuster-proof-majority/

The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”[1]

This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will.

Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans.

[1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling.[1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party.

[1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/26/us-debt-crisis-talks-impasse

Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law.[1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law.[2]

This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people.   

[1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196

[2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’, http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/reconciliation_process.htm

Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation.

Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it.

Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus.[1]

There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party.[2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties.    

[1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc

[2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government accessed 30/1/12

Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventing compromise and leading to gridlock. In some extreme cases a complete shutdown of the federal government has been forced due to the impasse, such as in 1995 when Clinton was unable to work with an obstinate Republican Congress.[1]

While Reagan was able to use his co-operation with House Democrats to great effect in pushing through policy and gaining re-election.[2] Clinton was re-elected by showing himself as the only one prepared to compromise compared to the dogmatic Republicans, merely continuing the Partisan mode of campaigning the Proposition hopes would end through divided government.[3]

[1] ‘1995-96 Government Shutdown’, Slaying the Dragon of Debt, http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/projects/debt/governmentshutdown.html

[2] Faler, Brian, ‘Reagan’s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero’, Bloomberg, 22 July 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html

[3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Lessons from the great government shutdown of 1995-96’, The Washington Post, 25 February 2011, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/lessons_from_the_great_governm.html

Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them.

The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate.[1]

Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people.

[1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222 

It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections[1]) when taking actions that effect all. By taking into account the wants and aims of both parties, the best policy that can carry the support of the broad cross-section of society will be implemented, preventing disillusionment with unrepresentative, overtly ideological government.

[1] Infoplease, ‘National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010’, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this.

Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government.

 Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required.

Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power.  

As noted earlier, compromises in Congress can be pre-arranged in order to satisfy the aims of the Executive if both are controlled by the same party, reducing the amount of check and balance from Congress. The party in control of Congress also form majorities on Departmental Committees making effective scrutiny conditional upon whether or not government is divided.

The last time a supermajority in the Senate was achieved along party lines was during the 95^th Congress of 1977-79 when the Democrats had 61 seats. Since then no party has achieved this yet the majority party has still have been able to use the influence they have to work in conjunction with their President’s agenda. Only by having split control can there be a real check and balance.

The Supreme Court can be quite partisan with Justices reading the law in order to fit their own ideological biases.[1] A seen a number of times during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the largely Republican appointed Court made controversial decisions in favour of the President and Republicans on Abortion and Affirmative Action, undermining the idea of the Court as a check on government power.     

[1] Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Judicial Partisanship Awards’, The Washington independent, 31 July 2008, http://washingtonindependent.com/350/judicial-partisanship-awards

The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging.

This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement[1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable.[2]

While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy.[3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government.    

[1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009,  http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/15/the-tea-party-revolution

[2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011, http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Republican-right-moderate-teaparty/2011/07/27/id/405055

[3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc

The reason why a febrile atmosphere has emerged in recent years is because both red and blue single-party governments have made unpopular decisions without the necessary checks being place upon it. This has made people disenchanted with the political system and made them think that it is only looks out for ideological elites, causing a backlash in the form of the Tea Party and Occupy movements.[1]

Divided Government combats this by helping to re-establish consensus between the parties over what is best for America, ensuring that policies have the consent of a majority of people, thus preventing the overtly ideological backlashes seen recently.

[1] Miles, Chris, ‘What the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Have in Common’, policymic, http://www.policymic.com/articles/1916/what-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-have-in-common

The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, through libertarian conservatism like much of the tea party, to fiscal conservatives who are mostly more moderate. Interweaving these three is national security conservatism and issues conservatism.[1]

Policies formed by each party are specifically designed to take into account of the different strands within the party, creating a platform that all candidates can stand on.

The policy is in effect a compromise between different wings of the party, with Primaries adding credence to a particular view.

In effect, Policies enacted under Single-Party Government have had the oversight from party members in order to be representative of the different interests within the party, thus delivering clear, coherent policies to the people that are constantly self-corrected due to the different ideological streams.

[1] Westen, Drew, ‘The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling’, HuffPost, 23 January 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-five-strands-of-conse_b_187675.html

The parties may be broad churches with many mechanisms in place to form the ‘best policy’ but that can still lead to flaws under a single-party government. It is easy for one wing to dominate a party, as has been seen recently with the dominance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party.

Primaries are a symptom of this, with the views of grass roots being expressed in results that do not conform to the views of a majority of voters.   

This can lead to parties standing and governing on a platform that is unrepresentative of the aims of many Americans. Under Single-Party Government, there is little scope for moderating highly ideological government, thus underlining the need for divided government.