Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
I think government works best if only one political party holds office. It is very hard for the party you voted for to keep their promises if two parties hold office. Ideally, at least in terms of what your favorite candidate can accomplish, it is best for Congress and the Supreme Court to have a majority of members the same party as the person you helped put into office.
[1 point]3 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 3 years ago by Chipmonk
Better? Yes. Faster? No. And the US Citizens were convinced that things weren't moving 'fast' enough during the Regan administration. Remember all that talk of how 'slow' government worked and how that was a BAD thing? But faster isn't always better. They were able to 'fast track' a whole lot of financial law changes. And we are now seeing the fallout of 'fast track' financial law changes.
[1 point]3 years ago by sillynillyReplyEdited 3 years ago by sillynilly
I like the approach in some European nations. Where the people vote for a party, and the congress (or congress like body) is composed of members of each party in accordance to what percent of the vote they got. I actually think something like that could work in the US as well.
I think government works best if only one political party holds office. It is very hard for the party you voted for to keep their promises if two parties hold office. Ideally, at least in terms of what your favorite candidate can accomplish, it is best for Congress and the Supreme Court to have a majority of members the same party as the person you helped put into office.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyBetter? Yes. Faster? No. And the US Citizens were convinced that things weren't moving 'fast' enough during the Regan administration. Remember all that talk of how 'slow' government worked and how that was a BAD thing? But faster isn't always better. They were able to 'fast track' a whole lot of financial law changes. And we are now seeing the fallout of 'fast track' financial law changes.
That won't happen in the US.
Nope ... but here's hoping Ron Paul 2008 becomes the Republican version of Ralph Nader 2000.
I like the approach in some European nations. Where the people vote for a party, and the congress (or congress like body) is composed of members of each party in accordance to what percent of the vote they got. I actually think something like that could work in the US as well.
Don't go there. The present Swedish gov is a coalition of four parties. The best one can say is that it does not work as badly as one would expect.