ForumsWEPR1 party rule in America?

17 1922
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

As it stands right now, it hasn't happened yet. However, if Texas or enough swing states were to turn reliably blue in presidential elections, it could put an end to anyone but Democrats being elected President. Assuming it goes on long enough, could have some consequences for the USA.
Naturally, judges grow old and retire and/or die. It would be easy to stack the courts with judges who are partial to the Democrats and their allies if Democrats were to hold onto power for long enough. . If nothing was to change, America's federally elected judges would all be Democrats. Given how judgments in the SCOTUS are sometimes split between party lines, it would be much easier for the Democrats to have things declared constitutional, whether they actually are or not. About the only thing that could stop them would be a major shift in politics, with blue states becoming swing states or even turning red over time, or a new party rising to power to contest the Democrats.
As it stands now, it's almost impossible for a party to get as much as their foot in the door with the way the system is set up. The requirements to take part in the presidential debates flat out bans independents and makes party candidates almost impossible to get in. So impossible, it hasn't happened since 1980, when Carter threw a hissy fit over John B. Anderson being allowed in. Naturally Anderson was ejected from the debates after the first one so Carter could have his way. I cannot imagine the rules changing to allow another party to contest the Democrat's power.
Obviously, this would most likely be a temporary problem as the political winds are always changing and SCOTUS judges die from time to time (old age gets us all eventually if nothing else does.). However, if the Democrats held onto power long enough, and managed to replace all of the judges with their hand picked members, it could have repercussions for a long, long time. I'm not going to judge on what those repercussions might be, since obviously only time would tell. The average length of a SCOTUS judge's tenure is about 16 years, just something to think about. Judges have lasted from 5 months to 36 years. If the SCOTUS ended up packed with young (relatively) justices, especially ones with a strong partisan tilt, it could be trouble.
Of course, if California or several blue/swing states somehow turned reliably red, the same (yet opposite) effect could happen. I'm not sure of the breakdown of California's political leanings by area, but it would probably take a cataclysmic earthquake to kill off enough people to diminish California's population enough to not be as dominant, even then it would still be one of the largest populations and still have a lot of electoral votes.
Now, either way, if 1 party rule were ever in effect for more than a few years, it could lead to political warfare in Congress, given how quick the dominant party would be to steamroll the minority party, especially if the minority party were to return to power, or even turn the tables. If you think it's bad now, it could be worse.

  • 17 Replies
Fiends
offline
Fiends
114 posts
595

Checks and balances generally fights against this type of thing. Judges can be impeached, and, in case you didn't know, federal judges must be nonpartisan.


They can be partisan, just not openly partisan. As long as they can write something other than "It's the other party so **** em" and come up with some acrobatic logic, then there's not much you can do about it.

As it stands, Independents are mainly comprised of interest groups who don't have a fraction of the resources that the RNC and the DNC possess. So they are left to either choose to never win or join the R/DNC in hopes of getting their issues noticed. Also, Ralph Nader has come close to getting his party noticed, but that is only when dealignment has occurred.


Hard to drum up resources when almost no one knows who you are.

think you forgot the Senate. The Senate is there to help balance things out.


Large enough majority in the senate can neutralize the problem of the opposition getting in the way. The House has a better chance..
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

oh boy, oh boy, the government will take 10 times longer to decide then they already do. xD


This would have nothing to do with decisions, it would have to do with elections. If one party received 10% of the vote, then 10% of Congress will be occupied by such group. It's that simple.

who says that my representator actually representate me? and not his own goals over my back? who choosed these respresentators? i want to be there myself... i'll bring my own chair... just add me to the pay-list.


You would have to get enough votes. Voters choice!

They can be partisan, just not openly partisan. As long as they can write something other than "It's the other party so **** em" and come up with some acrobatic logic, then there's not much you can do about it.


Because litigation, the first amendment and checks and balances are null and void, right? We have these to fight against that.

Hard to drum up resources when almost no one knows who you are.


That only helps my point... Joining one of the NCs gets your issues noticed and makes you more popular... e.g. The NRA.

Large enough majority in the senate can neutralize the problem of the opposition getting in the way. The House has a better chance..


They are bicameral, meaning separate but working on a common thing. Another example of checks and balances.
Showing 16-17 of 17