In this article the author, Phil Willon, highlights how reluctant the two political parties are to work with one another once the election is over. A new USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll collected data about California voter's opinions on the two candidates and what they believe should be done if their preferred candidate were to lose. Whether Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump wins, supporters of the losing candidate favor to have their member of Congress to "act as a check and balance" of the newly elected president, rather than working together with the victor's party. Along with opposing the cooperation between the parties, it was also shown that California's voters had unfavorable impressions of both candidates, "69% of California's voters had an unfavorable impression of Trump. For Clinton, 42% of voters had an unfavorable impression of the former secretary of State" making the next president to have the highest unfavorability ratings in recent history. The polarization has become so extreme that although both sides believe compromise is important, neither want to be the first to do so. Senate candidate Kamala Harris mentions that despite the political parties differences, the two need to come together and put the country first in order to get things done.
Questions to consider:
1. How much of politics should be about checks and balances as opposed to compromise and working together?
2. Do you think Washington's gridlock problem can be fixed, if so what are the steps that need to be taken in order to do so?
3. What are the pros and cons of having a two-party system?
Having a two party system can be quite disastrous, as more of the population feels lower levels of party ties and the two institutions become increasingly polarized. The parliamentary systems in Europe, which allow proportional representation may in fact be beneficial. Furthermore, our first-past-the-post voting system should be reformed in favor of a more complex voting system in which people can rank candidates in order of favorability.
ReplyDeleteBoth compromise and checks/balances are vital to our systems of government. Indeed, it is due to lack of compromise and division along partisan lines in Congress that its checks on the executive branch's power have been eroded (as [albeit indirectly] with the War Powers Act after the Vietnam police action.) Refusal of Congress to act with necessary speed leads to a necessity for the executive branch to have more power, such that key time-sensitive decisions can be made quickly. This, of course, has the side effect of making the executive too powerful (giving it, de facto, the originally solely Congressional power to begin a war). If Congress was able or willing to cooperate, the original systems of checks and balances might apply more effectively (as aforementioned, especially to the executive branch.) In general, not only are checks and balances not an opposite of bipartisan compromise, but one is necessary for the other to survive.
ReplyDelete