Divided control of the US government between political parties
In the United States, divided government describes a situation in which one party controls the White House (executive branch), while another party controls one or both houses of the United States Congress (legislative branch). Divided government is seen by different groups as a benefit or as an undesirable product of the model of governance used in the U.S. political system. Under said model, known as the separation of powers, the state is divided into different branches. Each branch has separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the others. The degree to which the president of the United States has control of Congress often determines their political strength, such as the ability to pass sponsored legislation, ratify treaties, and have Cabinet members and judges approved. Early in the 19th century, divided government was rare but since the 1970s it has become increasingly common.
The model can be contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary system where the executive and legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified. Those in favor of divided government believe that such separations encourage more policing of those in power by the opposition, as well as limiting spending and the expansion of undesirable laws.[1] Opponents, however, argue that divided governments become lethargic, leading to many gridlocks. In the late 1980s, Terry M. Moe, a professor of political science at Stanford University, examined the issue.[2] He concluded that divided governments lead to compromise which can be seen as beneficial, but he also noticed that divided governments subvert performance and politicize the decisions of executive agencies. Additionally, further research has shown that during divided governments, legislatures will pass laws with sunset provisions in order to achieve a political consensus.[3]
Party control of legislative and executive branches
Many presidents' elections produced what is known as a coattail effect, in which the success of a presidential candidate also leads to electoral success for other members of their party. In fact, all newly elected presidents except Zachary Taylor, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush were accompanied by control of at least one house of Congress.
^ abThe 1952 elections resulted in a 49-47 Republican majority, but Wayne Morse switched to become an Independent, and vacancies resulted in a tied Senate for part of the Congress. The Constitution gives tie-breaking power to the vice president, which for most of the 83rd Congress was Republican Richard Nixon.
^ abcThe 2000 elections resulted in a 50–50 tie in the Senate, and the Constitution gives tie-breaking power to the vice president. The vice president during most of the 107th Congress was Republican Dick Cheney. Then on May 24, 2001, Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats as an independent, resulting in Democrats gaining the Senate majority.
^ abCarter served the last 17 days of his presidency with a Republican majority Senate.
^Clinton served the last 17 days of his 2nd term with a 50-50 majority in the senate, and the Constitution gives tie-breaking power to the vice president. During this brief period, Democrat Al Gore was the tie breaker until Republican Dick Cheney was sworn in and broke the tie in favor of the Republicans.
