Is it good or bad to have one party in control of House, Senate and the White House?

Question

I've always thought that it is better to have different parties in control of each. What are your thoughts without bashing anyone or any party?

Answer 1

It's bad for either party to have total control. It's called checks and balances and no one party should take total charge or we'll be in trouble.
This diversification is a must in a democracy.

Answer 2

Yes, it's bad. It gives one party too much power.

Look at the Bush administration. He has been able to appoint people loyal to "him" (not the constitution) because the Republican controlled house could overcome any attempt to block it. When he breaks the law, the courts (which are stacked with Republican appointees) will give him card blanche as well. Look how protected Rove, Gonzalez, Miers, and Cheney are.

It destroys checks and balances and turns us into a fascist society.

Answer 3

When I was younger that's exactly how I voted.

I didn't vote for the party half as much as I voted for what I thought could get done or needed to be done. After a couple elections I noticed a lot of idle action from one party and stuck to the other.

Answer 4

you are correct.. it is bad to have one party in charge of all 3.. it breaks down the very checks and balances our government was built on. The last 7 years have shown what happens when one party has complete control. But the Republicans have the Supreme Court and probably will for years to come since those are life time appointments... yet another reason to vote Democrat :P ( I couldn't resist)

Answer 5

You left out the Supreme Court. One party rule is called oligarchy. It can be good it can be really bad.
Fascism is one form of oligarchy.

Freedom seems to be best protected when the Constitutional system of checks and balances is enforced.

Unfortunately, that has died in America because the Democrats refuse to Indict the president and the vice-presient and file impeachment charges against them.

Answer 6

It is less productive to have two different parties in control, but sometimes less productivity is better. In theory, the scarier bills would not be passed then. In theory.

Answer 7

they are going to would desire to take back the educational device in this u . s . a . and confirm that historic previous is instructed somewhat in assessment to that's now. they are going to would desire to end protecting themselves and lean to attack very corresponding to the left does now with lies and untruth in basic terms then can they get on the comparable point by using fact the left. they are going to would desire to purchase some information merchants by using fact the left has administration of virtually each information station in this u . s . a ..

Answer 8

Good question!! I think it's both - good and bad. More will get accomplished because they aren't working against each other and cancelling out each other's efforts - BUT will it be good things or bad things that they accomplish? THERE's the rub. So I guess the questions are: For whom is it a good thing? and For whom is it a bad thing?

Answer 9

Bad idea. Not just because of Bush...because we need a system of checks and balances in this country, which was proven during Bush's admin. I even find it is better to have different parties within your own cabinets...like Abe Lincoln did. he surrounded himself with people who disagreed with him, in fact he appointed people who ran against him in the elections..he valued diversity of opinion and experience. I doubt any other president in history could have done what his admin did during the civil war
BTW, you left out the judicial branch..although they are supposed to be without party, I think we can all agree that is not the case here.

Answer 10

yea one party's not good. it would be recipe for dectatorship. all they have to do is select a leader and lock down the country