Balancing Congress

[NightFlirt]

Part of the problem that I see when it comes to Congress is that one party always has the advantage over the other, and this balance of power keeps flipping. The democrats try to block everything the republicans want if they have the power and vise versa. I say its time to put both a Republican and a Democrat from each state into both the House and the Senate. This way both parties will be forced to negotiate and compromise on bills, laws and everything else. As it stands now what one party puts into motion as soon as the power shifts the other party tears it down. Stop the Political infighting and WORK TOGETHER!!

[nightdrot]

Forgive me, there are so many mistaken assumptions here that it is hard to know where to start. Not least being that it confuses cause and effect. The Congress is not gridlocked because of the balance of the parties, but rather it has the balance of the parties that it does because the public does not know what it wants and cannot agree and hence votes accordingly and thereby gives the Congress the balance of parties that it has.

Moreover, the system is designed to be gridlocked. It is designed to slow debate and prolong deliberation. This to prevent a sloppy hastiness in decision making and also to avoid what the Founders called the "tyranny of the majority." Thus the Constitution has its separation of powers between the three distinct branches of government, with all its checks and balances.

The point being that the system is designed to slow debate and cause decisions to be reached only when there is a broad societal consensus in favor of such decisions. Suffice to say, when societal cohesion breaks down - as it has throughout American history from time to time - law making is slowed and gridlock often ensues.

By the way, this is not new. The social tumult and political gridlock the country is facing at the moment bares a resemblance to nothing so much as the 1960s and 1970s. Think of this, from the end of the Eisenhower administration until the Reagan years, there was not one successful presidency.

Kennedy is assassinated. Johnson is so unpopular that he is forced not to seek re-election. Nixon is brought down by the Watergate scandal. Ford is not only not re-elected, he was never initially elected, having become VP when Agnew was forced to resign in scandal and then being elevated to the presidency when Nixon was forced to resign. Carter's presidency is a disaster of double digit inflation, foreign policy disasters and gridlock in Congress.

Indeed, what likely brought this about, in part, was the result of the Kennedy assassination and Johnson's tsunami win over Goldwater in 1964. The result was massive - in this case Democrat - majorities in both Houses of Congress. With such supermajorities, the normal institutional safeguards against hasty legislating broke down, the New Frontier/Great Society agenda is passed at (relatively speaking) hyper-speed.

The result? A massive backlash as expressed in race riots, campus radicalism, and ultimately government overreach and, after the 1968 elections, even worse partisanship and gridlock. In short, when Congress became hyper-responsive and moved too quickly, the result was a massive backlash and disruption. As the old saying has it, "be careful what you wish for, you may get it."

Beyond that, you seem to misunderstand the nature of American political parties. (Here I offer my response to a different, but related, question: Americans: Why don't you vote for parties except Democrat and Republican? ↗ (My answer was rated "Most Helpful Guy."))

Then to add that party discipline in Congress is exceedingly weak. Far from it being two monolithic parties at each other's throats, you have various factions that must be cobbled together on each issue. (Albeit there is more party cohesion on some issues than on others. It tends to be almost case specific and somewhat tied to the broader cultural environment.) It is like herding cats.

Bottom line, and I sincerely intend no offense, you have seriously misdiagnosed the problem. Then to offer a cure that would likely prove worse than the disease.

[cuttl]

What we need is more than two parties.

[nightdrot]

Forgive me, but you are misunderstanding the nature of our parties. If I may cheat a little, see here my response to the following question. It was rated "Most Helpful Guy": Americans: Why don't you vote for parties except Democrat and Republican? ↗

[mattdzz]

That's the dumbest thing I've heard today, congrats.
If both party's were guaranteed a seat in congress there would be no reason to accurately represent their constituents. Voting would be a thing of the past, and this is just all around a dumb idea.

[Agape93]

That can always lead to political dead locks as well.

[Agape93]

When that happens, you need people or a mechanism to shift the balance of power

[Ámayas_20]

Last time I checked people could vote for who they wanted

[LordSniffles]

I want more people to get better educated on the Democratic and Republican parties. Learn their histories well because you would be surprised as to what both parties were responsible for

[Jerre]

Then NOTHING would ever get done in Congress. It would always be a 50-50 split on every bill introduced into the Senate

[NightFlirt]

You are right to a point. It would be dead locked for a while but eventually they would Have to start working together if they wanted to stay in office.

[Jerre]

I looked at your profile, your questions asked. I wanted to respond to your question “How do I Look” but always took me to the “How Do I Look” pages with 100’s of people. Anyway I think you are Hot and Sexy looking. Personally, I would love to date you and am sure we could have lots of fun.

[Jamie05rhs]

https://www.nolabels.org/

[Poormanscomedian]

Our fathers planned it that way , so one party doesn't go wild

[NightFlirt]

excuse me? How dose the current system prevent one party from going wild? If each state can only have 1 representative then that means there is a very good chance of the Democrats going wild because they have the majority for that term. Put both a Democrat and a Republican from each state and no wild parties for The House.

[zagor]

The problem is their primary concern is always their own career.

[ForbesMagazine]

You're not the genius you think you are, stop talking and shut up.

[johnieohm]

well this is just a systemic problem since likevthe 1800's

[Anonymous]

You're naïve and stupid. They will never compromise, and for good reason.

[CocoBat]

Ok, lobotomite