Whether or not you like the democratic party, are you happy for balance once again in government?

Question

Obviously, if you hate them, they are the 'other' side of the coin...hence BALANCE. Do you prefer a government that is balanced, or do you prefer absolute rule of one party? If you prefer balance, would you vote for the 'other guy' to keep balance?

Answer 1

I voted Democratic in the mid-terms, precisely toward the end of having checks and balances in place. I wouldn't necessarily vote this way every time to maintain balance. This time I did so because of the obvious need for it. When one party begins to abuse their majority power it's time to act. I don't think that happens all of the time. Presidents used to be more concerned with what Congress thought, and Congress used to be more bipartisan in its votes and debates. That began to change in 2000 and we can all see what has happened as a result.

Answer 2

To a point, yes, but there are limits to the idea.

Parties don't have rights; people do. So I still have to go down the list and look at people's stands on the issues. If one party is very far from my views, I have no problem consigning it to a small minority, or throwing it out of power 100%. (As an extreme - but real-life - example, I would have no trouble voting "straight party line" if transported back to 1860 and faced with a choice between Republicans who wanted to outlaw slavery and Democrats who wanted each state to decide the issue!)

There's a fair amount of diversity (although perhaps not as much as I'd like) in each party, so that factor might result in me voting for someone of a different party more than the idea of balance itself. Republicans voted for Lieberman; Democrats voted for Bloomberg (NYC). But one of the most important issues, if not THE most important, is which party a congressman or senator will vote into the leadership and give control of the legislative process to. So the candidates have already "spoken" on a large number of issues simply by choosing a party.

Again, I have to hope that whoever is in power does the best for the country. Somehow we've muddled through pretty well so far.

Maybe the "balance" we get is cyclical: seems like the Republicans had their time and lost their way, as the Democrats did before them. New blood, new ideas, a fresh approach. Again, I have to hope it will result in good things, although I am extremely disgusted with the Democrats and their conduct with respect to the war and our troops. I'm only one vote; I have to live with the election results.

Answer 3

Balnceis good. It's what the founding fathers had in mind when they structured the government.

When I go to the voting booth, I always look for balance and never pull the party lever. Whoops, I mean push the party button. My bad.

If the governor is a dem, I'll vote for the republican for treasurer. I'll throw in a few repub legislators, adn maybe an independent or two. I know it probably makes no difference, but it makes me feel like I'm doing my duty.

Answer 4

Aaaah - this is a loaded question. Yes I believe balance is better than the other side taking control as it has for six years, but the left sometimes goes too far too. From a realistic perspective balance is the best we can hope to achieve in the short term, but I'm confident liberal ideas win out in the long term as they have down through history. Conservatives provide a good filter.

Answer 5

I didn't really have a problem with balance or imbalance until this administration, when the government started ignoring the will of the people. After this fiasco, I pray we never have a Republican Prez. and Repub. Congress again.

Answer 6

Balance! That is why we have three branches of government. Checks and balances are very much needed (see last 6 years of American history).

Answer 7

I'm not so sure if you would call what we have now 'balanced'. Both Bush and the GOP still act like they have enough of a 'blank check' to run the country as they see fit.

Answer 8

After six weeks of going in circles, it appears to this disappointed liberal that they're still trying to get their balance. If it's ever achieved, yes it would be more of an ideal situation rather than what we've had the past six years.

Answer 9

Yeah. When the President and Congress are both the same party then you are just asking for trouble. Someone need to be around to put a limit on the president's power.

Answer 10

Until there are no longer judges who legislate from the bench, ignoring the Constitution (the 9th Circuit court comes to mind), there won't be any balance in government.