Would America be better off under single party rule?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G51989, Aug 3, 2014.

  1. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #1
    I meet lots of people, riding the bus, at gas stations, waiting in line at the super market, saying things like

    " If OH BAMA wasn't in office, America would be great "

    Or

    " We need Bill Clinton Back! "

    Or

    " We Need more Republicans! "

    Or

    " We need more Democrats in office.


    Blah blah blah.

    My view is, a balanced approach is needed to properly govern.

    But to the hardcore Democrats and Republicans on this fine website.

    Do you think America would be a better place, if either the Republicans or Democrats had complete rule?

    If so. Please tell me why
     
  2. satcomer, Aug 3, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2014

    satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #2
    A single Party rule means two different poisons, fascism or communism! Neither pick isn't good and I would not live there if that happened.

    If anything I would like to see more political parties! :eek:
     
  3. citizenzen, Aug 3, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2014

    citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    Absolutely not.

    Even though I'm staunchly left, I believe that conservatism can be a valuable component of political debate and policy making. But it only works when there's a good faith effort to actually govern instead of politicizing and obstructionism.

    We don't need less diversity of opinion. We need more.

    Proportional representation, not this two-party gridlock, is (IMO) the best solution.
     
  4. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #4
    Nope.

    I prefer gridlock and dysfunction. Our system is that way by design.
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    Says so in the Constitution.

    :rolleyes:
     
  6. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #6
    So you admit the American system is a failure?

    Because I feel it is.
     
  7. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7
    I agree with him to an extent. Our system is designed to prevent the majority of passing something that is against the wishes of the people, unconstitutional, etc by giving the minority party the ability to create gridlock. So if the party in power wanted to bring back slavery for instance, the minority party would be able to pretty much kill the bill by creating gridlock and dysfunction.

    But this constant gridlock and dysfunction that we have today is not what I think was intended. We can't even properly fund the highway system, we can't agree on how to reform healthcare, etc. This gridlock and dysfunction has prevented the government from carrying out their responsibility of basic governance.
     
  8. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #8
    Of course not. My party, not the Republicans or Democrats. I'm sure we all feel the same way-- if only we ourselves ran things, everything would be better.

    Representative government requires people to listen to others viewpoints, and, accepts that no one person has all the good ideas. As for certain Republicans-- it seems that they no longer want to hear other ideas. The Republicans have become a caricature. However, that still doesn't mean that the Democrats have all the good ideas.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  10. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    We need more parties, proportional representation, and to make it a felony to use private money to influence elections.
     
  11. vrDrew, Aug 3, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2014

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #11
    Have you ever heard a country described as a "multiparty dictatorship"?

    Obviously not. Having real choice at the ballot box acts as a fundamental brake on the excessive use of power. And coupled with our Three branch system of Government - with an independent Judiciary to ensure that even if one party holds all the Executive and Legislative office the laws they pass stay within the bounds of our Constitution - it really has been quite effective of keeping us tyrant-free these last 240 years.

    Now, you could argue that we might sometimes be better off with more of a Parliamentary system. Where the party that got the most seats in the Congress had the right to form a government. That certainly is a way of "getting things done" - but its also prone to bigger swings in Government policy from election to election.

    I'll be honest and say I detest most of the today's Republican party. But even so, I wouldn't support a single-party Democratic Government. Because the temptation to go too far would be all but impossible to ignore.

    Better gridlock and partisanship than dictatorship and tyranny any day.
     
  12. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Shady Dale, Georgia
  13. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #13
    Far better than what?
     
  14. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #14
    Founders knew it. Sane people know it.

    Gridlock is better.
     
  15. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #15
    I'm sorry, but this is all too vague and incorrect, I'm afraid.

    In Federalist Paper 58, James Madison directly speaks against the idea of "giving the minority party the ability to create gridlock" ...


    While it's true that it takes more than a mere majority to conduct some matters of congress ...

    It was not the intent of the Founders to build that kind of hurdle into everyday governance.

    ----------

    See above.

    Please cite your evidence that the Founders favored "gridlock".
     
  16. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #16

    Like I said, I am not for total and absolute gridlock like we are seeing today. It may not be the intentions of the founding fathers to be able to give the minority the ability, but I am not opposed to it. If the party in power wanted to do something that isn't right( like reinstating slavery), the minority party should have some kind of power to stop it. It shouldn't have to wait until it goes to the Supreme Court to strike it down or elections in order to get people into power to reverse the law.

    But todays gridlock I do not support. But I do support it when not abused and prevents everyday governance as you said. Give the minority no power to block the majority then we would be pretty close to tyranny if one party controls all 3 branches of government as we see today even the SC is pretty much deciding things down party lines.
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    I would argue that the Gridlock we are seeing today is the result of one thing: Gerrymandering

    If there is no realistic chance for one party to win a Congressional Seat, then the election essentially becomes a race to see which candidate can be the most "extreme" - either Democratic or Republican in the associated primaries. That really doesn't do anyone any good.
     
  18. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #18
    You gotta fight for your right to paaarrttyyy!

    The more party the better! ;)
     
  19. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #19
    I always get a little giggle out of the people who seem to think that the founders were some kind of omniscient, clairvoyant beings with far more brilliance than any other human past or present has been able to attain. That they knew exactly what every sentence they wrote would or could lead to, for any situation or circumstance.

    Yet these same people are the ones who say government is incapable of doing anything correctly.
     
  20. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #20
    Nick was prettymuch right, democracy is window-dressing. The citizens will put up with a lot of crap, but a leader must seem generally reasonable or he/she will be deposed. If popular opposition crosses a max-tolerance threshold, a tyrant will be robespierred, castroed or pinocheted or a republic will become despotized. The American system has been a mess from the get-go, but the fact that the American people are convinced that voting means something has kept any widespread violence in check for a century and a half.

    Funny thing, though, when revolutions happen, they tend to be executed by a minority and succeed because the majority do not stand in opposition. Cuba is an interesting example. The current regime has maintained control of the country despite claims that the people are being oppressed. If the oppression was that bad, the regime would ultimately fail, which it is not showing signs of doing.

    So the party count is mostly inconsequential. What is really needed is absolute transparency. The government should simply not be allowed to classify or back-room any of the stuff it does. As long as there are secrets, it is not a democratic-type system.
     
  21. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #21
    Single party rule sounds a lot like a dictatorship to me.
     
  22. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #22
    I love how some people are saying gridlock is better ... as if doing nothing ever solves anything.

    Edit: Also, let's not forget the founders also intended for the government to be decided by white males ...
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    I actually prefer parliamentary as the executive branch leader is dependent on who won the elections for the legislative branch rather than have a Democrat president with a Republican congress.

    There's really no confusion about who is control when **** hits the fan.
     
  24. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #24
    Easy fix for that is to abolish Congressional districts altogether and elect them state wide like we do for Senators.
     
  25. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #25
    They didn't make it hard to implement changes by accident.

    The very nature of design is prevent ham-handed changes.

    If it was meant to be easy, they would have put another monarchy in place.

    ----------

    This is completely false. There is no absolute gridlock.

    There is no shortage of bills sent to the president every year.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
     

Share This Page