The US Election is over and decided (finally)

[Lady Arwyn]

The Montana and Virginia votes came in today, both for the Democrats. The Republicans are *not* going to ask for a recount (according to AP, Fox and CNN).

The new makeup of Congress is now...

Senate
51 Democrats (the two "Independents" caucus as Democrats)
49 Republicans

House of Representitives
229 Democrats
196 Republicans
*There are still 10 seats undecided, but at this point they cannot make any difference in who has majority/minority, only the degree of majority/minority.

Now, this means that while the Democrats can make some changes, they do NOT have the 2/3 majority needed to override a Bush veto, so there is a limit on what they can actually do.

I seriously doubt that, for all their talk of bipartisan cooperation, that either side will budge an inch. I forsee the next two years being two years of nearly nothing being done. Which is an improvement over the last 6 years of all the wrong things being done.

[Milo]

The Montana and Virginia votes came in today, both for the Democrats. The Republicans are *not* going to ask for a recount (according to AP, Fox and CNN).

The new makeup of Congress is now...

Senate
51 Democrats (the two "Independents" caucus as Democrats)
49 Republicans

House of Representitives
229 Democrats
196 Republicans

Now, this means that while the Democrats can make some changes, they do NOT have the 2/3 majority needed to override a Bush veto, so there is a limit on what they can actually do.

I seriously doubt that, for all their talk of bipartisan cooperation, that either side will budge an inch. I forsee the next two years being two years of nearly nothing being done. Which is an improvement over the last 6 years of all the wrong things being done.
Exactly. I don't even agree with everything the democrats say (most are too conservative for me), but this has potential to be excellent for the country/world.

[Dux]

Im going to be most interested in the first "100 hours". Pelosi (new Speaker for the House) has said she plans to bring up some major legislation in the first 100 hours.

A lot of people are going to be watching her now that she's the highest ranking female this country has ever had.

[Ryuu]

A lot of people are going to be watching her now that she's the highest ranking female this country has ever had.Really?

What about Hillary? She was President for 8 years & probably will be again ;)

[C_ris]

See, this is why I personally dislike the US system. Effective government needs one party in control. This will mean that nothing will get done, and that is a bad thing, as things NEED to be done.

[SpaceCowboy]

Sorry Milo I don't agree with this, because the Democrats are going to cut and run on Iraq like the cowards they are now and were during Vietnam. Since we made the mistake of going into Iraq we have the moral obligation to finish what we started no matter how many casulties there winds up being there. Before you say well that's easy for you to say that sentiment comes from somebody who has family members stationed in the army over there. Personally I believe Iraq should be divided into three countries, and if they want different forms of government then democracy so be it.

Exactly. I don't even agree with everything the democrats say (most are too conservative for me), but this has potential to be excellent for the country/world.

[Milo]

See, this is why I personally dislike the US system. Effective government needs one party in control. This will mean that nothing will get done, and that is a bad thing, as things NEED to be done.
That's crap. China is a one party system. Saddam Hussein's government was "one party."

No, you NEED contention. It keeps them "honest."
Sorry Milo I don't agree with this, because the Democrats are going to cut and run on Iraq like the cowards they are now and were during Vietnam. Since we made the mistake of going into Iraq we have the moral obligation to finish what we started no matter how many casulties there winds up being there. Before you say well that's easy for you to say that sentiment comes from somebody who has family members stationed in the army over there. Personally I believe Iraq should be divided into three countries, and if they want different forms of government then democracy so be it.
First of all... I don't think any prominent democrats are advocating an IMMEDIATE withdrawl. Second, to try to paint all democrats as "cowards" is insulting and obviously fallacious. Third, guess who is still the commander in chief? George W. Bush. He's in charge of the troops for two more years. And lastly, we need to finish what we started, yes, but the current administration is doing NOTHING to "finish."

[C_ris]

That's crap. China is a one party system. Saddam Hussein's government was "one party."

No, you NEED contention. It keeps them "honest."


I am referring to democractic systems only. Contention in democractic systems is provided in elections. Politicains are kept "honest" through the ability of the electorate to 'throw the bastards out' at the end of every term, which is usually somewhere between 4-6 years.

Effective government is required if things are to be done; and that is what governments are elected for - to DO things. In a two-party system like America, oppositional politics is the way things work - one party object to what the other says or does. If one party controls the executive and one the legislature, very little can possibly be done.

That is why I dislike the Presidential systems.

[Aurelia]

I am referring to democractic systems only. Contention in democractic systems is provided in elections. Politicains are kept "honest" through the ability of the electorate to 'throw the bastards out' at the end of every term, which is usually somewhere between 4-6 years.

Effective government is required if things are to be done; and that is what governments are elected for - to DO things. In a two-party system like America, oppositional politics is the way things work - one party object to what the other says or does. If one party controls the executive and one the legislature, very little can possibly be done.
That is why I dislike the Presidential systems.

When has having a limited term ever stopped someone from being corrupt? Also, they may not get much done, but only having ONE party and ONE key executive viewpoint oftentimes does not represent the view of the people: what governments claim to represent.

(Edit: This is no tirade on you, Crispy, just that point previously expressed. :))

[murphy]

When has having a limited term ever stopped someone from being corrupt? Also, they may not get much done, but only having ONE party and ONE key executive viewpoint oftentimes does NOT represent the view of the people: what governments CLAIM to represent.

I think he means multiple parties forming coalitions to work together for effective government.

[C_ris]

I think he means multiple parties forming coalitions to work together for effective government.

Nope, I mean effective, as in they get things done.

Coalitions are more effective than when the executive ('government') and legislative (parliament) sections are controlled by two different parties.


When has having a limited term ever stopped someone from being corrupt? Also, they may not get much done, but only having ONE party and ONE key executive viewpoint oftentimes does not represent the view of the people: what governments claim to represent.

(Edit: This is no tirade on you, Crispy, just that point previously expressed. :))

Limited terms may not completely prevent corruption, but nothing can. What it does is allow the people to choose who they want to govern them. The electorate vote for a party, who they want to govern them. The people do not have one viewpoint. Popular opinion is an amalgamation of what the people as a whole want. If there was only one view amongst the entire electiorate, that would be reflected in the government. But this very rarely, if ever, happens. All electorates are heterogeneous politically, which is why we have political parties.

What having one party controlling both the legislature and the executive means is that, within the political system in which they operate, they have an accepted mandate to govern as they will, of course with reflection on opinion polls - democratic governments ignore polls at their peril, since there are limited terms. For example - no party in Britain has recieved a majority of votes (ie 50%+1) since 1935. Indeed, Labour won just 35% or so of votes in 2005, and have a democratic mandate to govern. Different political systems work differently.

But they all require effective government. That is what they were elected for. If they can't do anything, why bother having them?

[Ryuu]

I am referring to democractic systems only. Contention in democractic systems is provided in elections. Politicains are kept "honest" through the ability of the electorate to 'throw the bastards out' at the end of every term, which is usually somewhere between 4-6 years.

Effective government is required if things are to be done; and that is what governments are elected for - to DO things. In a two-party system like America, oppositional politics is the way things work - one party object to what the other says or does. If one party controls the executive and one the legislature, very little can possibly be done.

That is why I dislike the Presidential systems.I could be worse--it could've been a Parlimentary system.

If your primary party doesn't have an overwhelming majority, it has to form coalitions with other fractional and fringe parties to gain the upper hand over the "opposition" -- or nothing gets done. Then you have to constantly worry about someone getting "offended" or worse, get in a scandle, which can blow your coalition to shreds and you end up with an unscheduled election to start all over again--and possibly loose big time.

On a historic note, FDR, Kennedy/Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr all had their parties controlling Congress for part of their terms. Of these, only FDR and the Kennedy/Johnson administrations really got anything "accomplished" with their allied control. FDR got the New Deal passed to revise the economy before WWII took command of the agenda, Kennedy and Johnson got several social reforms passed as well as got Vietnam started (& for the record, Nixon(R) was the cut&run president who got us out of Vietnam).

Carter and Bush were unable to get much accomplished through their parties' control of both houses because their "control" were simple majorities and not the needed overwhelming 2/3s control needed to bust opposition delaying tactics like filebusters or committee debates.

On the other hand, much of the progress that had been accomplished in our nation was done while the President and Congress were controlled by opposite parties. Eisenhower, Nixon, Regan and Bush Sr. accomplished a lot of good with their entire terms held by a hostile Congress. Clinton, too, had an overwhelming Democrat control of Congress through his first 2 yrs in office and the state of the nation was so bad that the mid term election in 1994 gave Republicans the overwhelming control of the House and a fairly strong control in the Senate, Again, most all improvements to the nation under his terms in office was only accomplished after January of 1995.

[murphy]

Nope, I mean effective, as in they get things done.

Coalitions are more effective than when the executive ('government') and legislative (parliament) sections are controlled by two different parties.



But they all require effective government. That is what they were elected for. If they can't do anything, why bother having them?

I automatically assumed that effective governing meant that they would get things done.

[Lady Arwyn]

Sorry Milo I don't agree with this, because the Democrats are going to cut and run on Iraq like the cowards they are now and were during Vietnam.

Interesting that 85% of Democratic Congressmen are military veterans, while less than 20% of Republicans are (or were, the makeup of the previous congress, I haven't seen the new Congressional veteran makeup is yet). So you're saying that the people who actually *served*, the ones that actually put their bodies out there, are the cowards?

Anyway, not a single Dem is talking about cutting and running, Dems are talking about a change in HOW to go about getting Iraq under control. No one wants to another Afghanistan. After they kicked out the Soviet invasion (with our help) in the 70s we abandoned them and it resulted in the Taliban and to some degree, 9/11. No one wants to let Iraq to become the next Talibani Afghanistan.