Does Divided government lead to effective governance? Flashcards
It does
Others would argue that a divided government means that there is far more effective checks on the executive and the doctrine of separation of powers is far more effective as a result.
For example not since 1935 for example has the senate rejected a treaty of a president in its own party, only twice in the last 50 years had congress overridden a veto from his own party.
Furthermore appointments to the Supreme court are also a heavily partisan process, this means that there is ineffective scrutiny of the presidents power, for example Trump nominated three justices in his time, the Republicans controlled the house on all three occasions and only 1 voted Nay across all three votes. Ineffective checks and balances. Would be more effective if democrats controlled the senate.
It doesnt
Bipartisanship is a essential feature of the current constitution, because of separation of powers and checks and balances this means that the three branches of the federal government must work together and cooperate.
Recently divided government has been a issue, this means that one party controls the presidency and the other party controls both houses of congress, furthermore the US political system has also become increasingly polarised and partisan.
In the 52 years between 1969 and 2021 36 have been divided and for only 15 years has the president controlled both houses of congress.
This leads to less effective governance, the ideological gulf between the two parties means they do not compromise, the 166th congress passed only 344 laws, making it the least productive in history, furthermore between 1980 and 1980 7% of bills were passed in congress, however between 2010 and 2021 only 2% passed.
