Speak Outs
Speak Out
How does the party system affect the lawmaking process?

October 29, 2015

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

In George Washington’s farewell address as president, he warned of the rise of political parties. Fearing tyranny from the few, he said: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

And while political parties have not become a force of tyranny, as the first president warned, they have become integral to the political process. The two dominant political parties vet the candidates for most elected offices, help elected officials align with like-minded officials and show the power of unity and block voting.

They also have a hand in partisan gridlock, political races that get sidelined by one or two issues, unfairly drawn congressional districts, and pork barrel spending. While partisan politics occurs on nearly every level, most people point to Congress as the place where it isn’t always working best for the American public.

Does the party system impede the legislative powers of Congress?

Congress is responsible for passing bills that the president then signs into law or vetoes. The party system has a significant impact on this process. If the president and majority of Congress are from the same party, checks and balances may be limited. If the president and the majority of Congress are from different parties, then they may be in conflict over legislation and the legislative process is stymied.

The legislative process to get a bill to the president’s desk is quite complex, and in every step, the party system comes into play. First and foremost, party politics are influential in the selection of committee members and chairs.

When lawmakers want to introduce a bill, they put it in writing and give it to the clerk, who passes it to the committees that have jurisdiction over provisions in the bill. So if the bill was about financing a new road with a new tax, it would go to the Transportation Committee and the Ways and Means Committee, which has oversight of taxes. Committees are where the fate of legislation is decided. The committee chairs decide which bills are reviewed. If they don’t like a particular bill, they can simply not bring it up for debate and a vote, essentially killing it.

Given all their power over how bills are introduced, how are committee members and the chair selected?

The parties decide committee membership. Each party creates a committee to recommend who will represent the party on the different committees. At the beginning of every new Congress, lawmakers indicate to party leaders which committee they would like to sit on, then the party leaders come together and decide on committee members. There is a formal vote, and the committees’ membership is finalized during the opening days of each new legislative year.

Parties use seniority, meaning the length of time a legislator has served in Congress and on a particular committee, to determine who sits on the committee and who will chair it.

Another factor in deciding committee membership is whether a legislator follows the party line or breaks with the party on issues. Lawmakers who are considered “team players” for the party will probably sit on more influential committees. If the lawmaker is more independent of the party, then he or she will probably not sit on many committees and the likelihood of becoming a chair is unlikely.

In the Senate, the Republican Party has attempted to weaken the effects of seniority by instituting term limits for committee chairs. The GOP policy, adopted in 1994, limits committee chairmanship to three terms. Its supporters argue that it keeps committee memberships dynamic and allows new ideas to enter into the legislative process. The policy also takes effect when the GOP isn’t in the majority in the Senate and Republicans fill the minority chair of committees.

A growing number of Democrats have begun advocating for a similar policy. Some have even praised the Republicans’ term limits. “A number of people would say Republicans have struck a better formula for advancement,” said Rep. John Larson of Connecticut. “And I don’t think it’s a bad thing for leadership at all. I mean, it’s verboten to say it, but it’s true, and I think even our current leaders would recognize it, all of whom I support.”

Opponents of term limits from both parties are often senior leaders whose time as committee chair is dwindling. Mainly critical that the term limits apply to minority chairs, they argue that the limits restrict a good legislator’s service.

“Don’t ask me to do a good job in the minority and make a rule that says you can’t continue to do a good job as chairman,” Texas Rep. Joe Barton said. Barton said the term limits are counterproductive by forcing leadership changes when they aren’t necessary and taking power away from ranking representatives who have more insight to the legislative process than more junior members.

Proponents of seniority and the party system’s influence on the legislative process say that the complex nature of Congress leads to more experienced lawmakers accumulating power. Learning how Congress works, developing relationships with other members, and learning the intricacies of the legislative process take time, proponents say.

What do you think?

Does the party system affect the lawmaking process in a negative or positive way? Does seniority help or hurt the legislative process? Should there be term limits on committee chairmanship? Was Washington’s fear of political parties justified? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
3/8/2016
Murrieta, CA
Corey
Mr.Jabro/Creekside High School
The party system has mostly affected the lawmaking process in a negative fashion. Though parties are not a terrible idea and can be beneficial, the political dominance that the republican and democrat parties have over other smaller American parties is disgraceful to say the least. It limits the amount of discussion and progress America can make ultimately as a result and should be expanded upon to include more smaller parties to remove some of the influence they have over America as a whole. Americans should feel safe voting for a third party rather than voting either democrat or republican, fearing the other's candidate would win.

3/8/2016
charlottesville va
mateso
Ms.Bailey/ monticello high school
It affects the lawmakers in a positive way. I think that it hurts the legislative process because your not really have new ideas and its not coming from the people that experience it in first hand. And i also think that there should be a term limit on the committee chairmanship because every one should have a chance to run for it and we shouldn't be waiting for a person to die because that just make it look bad.

3/8/2016
Charlottesville
Chandler
Bailey/Monticello High School
I think there should be limits on a committee chairmanship because it would make people become up set with the government witch would make a huge argument in the government to change the system

3/7/2016
Charlottesville
Dayvon
Ms. Bailey/ Monticello High School
The party system in the United States has its history dating back to when George Washington when he said that political parties are dangerous. So far today, the Republicans and Democrats have been the two main parties and their different ideas to improve the country.

3/7/2016
charlottesville va
Britney
Mrs.bailey/ monticello high school
Should there be term limits on committee chairmanship? No, I think if there were limits you would always have someone new and learning how things work. If you get the option of being on the committee and your there for awhile you, get the hang of your job title, like for example if your new somewhere you want yo understand what your doing so you can do your best, but if there is always someone new its hard to do that because of adjusting to your surroundings and job.,

3/7/2016
Virginia
Sarah
Mrs. Bailey
I believe seniority hurts the party system. Old members can influence the lawmaking process, making it harder for new ideas to be heard. Although they may be more experienced, it is possible for a new idea to be missed when someone hasn't been in office for a long time.

3/7/2016
Virginia
Darian Bates
Mrs. Bailey
Congress is there to insure that the president doesn't have too much power, but this doesn't mean that the party system is effective. The Party system was created so that not one party would have the most power.

3/7/2016
Charlottesville/Virginia
Jessica
Bailey/Monticello
The party system affects lawmaking processes in a negative way. All persons in the government need to learn to work together to solve the issues for the people. Seniority can help, as long as the person is being productive and not just sitting their pouting when they don't get their way. This is a double sided question- if they are doing a good job, why not let them continue. However if they are holding back production, they shouldn't be allowed to stay. YES!!!! Party system is a terrible idea! It too often creates gridlock which is then supported when members of congress continue to be paid while doing nothing productive for the people. It doesn't give the people enough choice. Also, too often it separates the people instead of uniting them as one force!

3/7/2016
Charlottesville, Virginia
Trevor S
Mrs. Bailey
The party system keeps the lawmaking process competitive, a continuous battle to gather the proper votes. Seniority helps maintain traditions and ideals- however, that also means that the legislative process is more stagnant than it could be. Term limits could solve that aspect of the legislative process, regulating the rotations and opening opportunities for a more modern approach of governing. Washington was right to bring attention to parties and what they could possibly do in terms of conflict but parties have also made the legislative process more considerate of the public and individuals themselves, giving everyone a chance to voice their opinions and the ability to advocate key issues.

3/7/2016
charlottesville va
Britney
Mrs.bailey/ monticello high school
Should there be term limits on committee chairmanship? No, I think if there were limits you would always have someone new and learning how things work. If you get the option of being on the committee and your there for awhile you, get the hang of your job title, like for example if your new somewhere you want yo understand what your doing so you can do your best, but if there is always someone new its hard to do that because of adjusting to your surroundings and job.,

3/7/2016
Virginia
Sarah
Mrs. Bailey
I believe seniority hurts the party system. Old members can influence the lawmaking process, making it harder for new ideas to be heard. Although they may be more experienced, it is possible for a new idea to be missed when someone hasn't been in office for a long time.

1/29/2016
sidney/montana
NICK
Mr. Faulhaber
The party system in the United States has its history dating back to when George Washington when he said that political parties are dangerous. So far today, the Republicans and Democrats have been the two main parties and their different ideas to improve the country. The party system can affect the lawmaking process in a positive way because the president can be from one party and the majority of members in Congress can be from the other, that can lead to bills not becoming laws by a veto from from the president and a huge feuds in Congress. Seniority is really helpful for committees because the experience is there and the majority of the time these seniors have a say in Congress. A position in committees should be judged on the way he or she can cooperate with the law, every political party wants to take control of both the executive and legislative, and committees with senior representation can work very well. In all, Washington speech on political parties was a warning sign to let the future know that the rivalry of parties can lead to bad decisions to come.

1/27/2016
Sidney Mt
Kaitlyn
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I think the party system can affect the lawmaking process in both negative and positive ways. Seniority in the legislative process would be more of a hurting factor than a helpful one. I think there should be term limits on committee chairmanship. Chairmanship should not be a lifelong thing. I do think that Washington’s fear of political parties was justified.

1/27/2016
Sidney/MT
Clay
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
Political parties affect the lawmaking system in a primarily negative way. In the two-party system, Americans are basically forced to choose between Democrat and Republican, limiting democracy. Also, third parties have a difficult time gaining any ground; this means that many of the policies that are important to the third parties are overlooked, or absorbed into the major parties that have limited interest in such issues. Overall, political parties serve to divide the American people into bitter rivals that stops America from making important political decisions.

1/4/2016
Irving/TX
Miryam
Etheridge/Nimitz
The power of political parties affects process in lawmaking procedures, I believe that there is good in political parties but the role that parties play today is far more complex than it really should be. In my view, today's party system is all about beating the opponent's views to the ground and issuing thousands of dollars for campaign coverage more than actually serving their duty to the people of America. Party seniors should use their years' knowledge and wisdom to influence committees; I don't think that the chairs should be appointed to senior party members because of their high status, it should definitely be appointed to congressmen with the most qualifications.

1/3/2016
Irving/tx
Kayla
Etheridge/nimitz
I believe the party in charge does have a huge effect on the lawmaking process. I think it's a negative thing most of the time because of self interest. The two major political parties are completely opposite and it's hard to pass things that would make everyone happy. I think there should be term limits on the committee.

12/17/2015
Irving/TX
Kendyl
Etheridge/Nimitz
I believe that the party system does affect the lawmaking process. Parties consists of 2 main sections: The Democratic Party which is liberal, and the Republican Party which is conservative. If the Republicans suggests something that they agree to, then most likely the Democratics will disagree with the statement. Therefore, it will be hard to successfully come up with a decision if both parties are not in agreement with each other. Also, being a seniority is really doesn't hurt the legislative process because they have experience, therefore, they'll understand how to solve certain situations if things go astray.

12/15/2015
Irving/TX
Scarlett
Etheridge/Nimitz
Having political parties in congress creates an environment where congressmen are pressured to vote in favor of what their party believes in, despite their actual beliefs. Having term limits on committee chairmanship would ensure a constant flow of new and relevant ideas. Washington's fear of political parties, while seeming a little far fetched, was surprisingly accurate. In today's government the parties are constantly feuding a way that would have been impossible if it were not for political parties, and this fighting leaks out into the rest of society and pits people who are engaged in society against each other.

12/15/2015
Irving /Tx
Xiomara
Etheridge
I believe that the political parties divide the lawmaking process, and this is not for the good of America If there were no political parties we wouldn't have such biased movements of laws and bills that weren't fair because it was controlled by a political party. Political parties really affect lawmaking in a negative way.

12/15/2015
Irving/TX
Alec
Etheridge/Nimitz
The party system greatly effects the the lawmaking process because the majority will always be bias to their parties best interest. In addition, if the branches are divided, such as the white house and congress, there will be an excessive amount of conflict because of the disagreement of the two and the separation of powers. In history, you can see the times were successful in government because the the same party was in charge in the white house and congress, such as FDR's presidency when there was a lot of legislation produced successfully.

12/15/2015
Irving/Tx
Hernan
Etheridge/Nimitz
Parties are composed of people that have the same political views. Their views inclining to a side, and people voting for far liked mindset will affect the lawmaking process. Like it is said, "if the president and majority of congress are from the same part, checks and balances may be limited".

12/15/2015
Irving/TX
Anthony
Etheridge/Nimitz
George Washington‘s fear of political parties was perfectly justified. A modern example of his fear of party competitiveness is in the Tea Party, which has already removed one of our speakers from office because he wasn’t conservative enough. Certain political party powers, such as the control-heavy political machines of the late 19th century, have been drastically reduced by the Hatch Act. Now that parties have been around since the 1800, I believe there is no way party systems would completely disappear. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. If they were to get rid of parties today, I think there would be a lot of fighting and a bunch of nothing getting done if we put people, with completely polar views on many different issues, into power.

12/9/2015
Irving/TX
Katherine
Etheridge/Nimitz
The party system essentially creates a legislative league- opposing teams use their members in congress to pass laws that their party deems favorable. Congressmen who don't agree with a law favored by their party are pressured into voting for it- there's even a name for the person who does the pressuring- the "whip." This turns lawmaking and elections into a game- which party can score the most points- and takes focus away from the usefulness of a low, or how it will benefit the people, and instead concerns politicians with how it helps them and their party (and their standing within the party, and chances for reelection).

12/7/2015
Irving/Tx
Maria
Etheridge/Nimitz
I believe Washington's fear of political parties is justified in the outcomes of the republicans and democrats continuously making the passing of a legislation unobtainable due to the matter of it being presented by the oposing party. The party system's feud of who is right and who is wrong continues even when a positive piece of legislation is proposed but rejected soley because the idea was not brought to the surface by one's own party. The acts of selfishness by rejecting an action that could have had a positive influence on society clearly produces the evidence of how negatively the affects of party faithfulness instead of faitfullness to justice and working to better society for citizens of the Unites States.

12/3/2015
Irving/Texas
Cesar
Etheridge/Nimitz
I believe that parties affect lawmaking in the form that we are always in a stalemate.If the democrats suggest something,republicans shoot it down and vice versa. George Washington warned us of this and we didn't listen.It's gotten so bad that the Speaker of The House resigned to get away from this mess and then after the most probable to take over his position dropped out of the race the day before the race. This is not how our government was designed to run. We as Americans can't allowbthis to keep happenning our nothing will ever get done. All the things that the President promises is not getting done because the opposing party will always vote against it.

11/29/2015
Diamond Bar/CA
Nathan
Wong/Lorbeer Middle School
I believe it divides politicians and doesn't allow them to work together for the greater good of America. George Washington warned us that political parties might divide us a nation, and it has the two dominate parties today quarrel over the even the smallest subject. Political parties play a major role in passing bills and laws if the President and Congress are from the same party the movement would be passed biasedly and we couldn't have done a thing. If there were no political parties we wouldn't have such biased movements of laws and bills that weren't fair because it was controlled by a political party.

11/21/2015
Sidney/MT
Tenna
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
According to the article, Washington feared that the formation of political parties would cause domination of one party over another, party disagreement, and a party holding absolute power. And although I don't think these problems have become as extreme as Washington thought, I think his fear of political parties is justified. The issue is that people tend to vote according to party labels instead of voting on the issues at hand. If people identify with a certain party they will tend to vote for that party candidate no matter what stance a candidate has on issues. Eliminating the “R” or “D” next to a candidates name on political ballots allows voters to make choices based on candidates views rather than just party affiliation. Supporters of political parties say that this will lead voters making uneducated decisions, but I think it will force voters to educate themselves on political issues in order to make the best voting decisions. Getting rid of political parties will also give third party candidates a chance at election. It allows for more opinions on political issues and gives voters more choices, rather then just the two extremes, when it comes to elections (nlcatp.org). I think we could do away with political parties and it wouldn’t be an issue.

11/20/2015
Sidney, MT
Devon
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The heart of this issue is that political parties are necessary in order for voters to make educated decisions while voting. The parties provided party labels and these labels are placed on ballots. These labels are a quick and simple way for today’s uneducated voters to, at a glance, identify what stance the candidate is likely to take on issues. Without party labels, elections would take place much like the judicial elections; where the nominees have to be nonpartisan and, therefore, cannot have a party label by their name. Those that do vote in this type of election generally pick the candidate whose name appears at the top of the ballot. As a result, Montana prints several different ballots with different candidates’ names printed first. A study, done in the UK, shows that when party labels are included on ballots voting turnout was significantly higher. This increased turnout even included minorities (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk). If parties did not exist, party labels would, naturally, not exist and less people would vote. Because of how uneducated, misinformed and uncaring today’s voters are, I believe that political parties and the labels they provide are a necessary evil in order to have elected officials that aren’t elected based purely on happenstance.

11/20/2015
Sidney, MT
Devon
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
Today’s voters are generally uneducated. As a result, they vote primarily based on the R or the D by the candidate’s name. While this does perpetuate voting based on party label and not on policy, the label allows uneducated voters to make a semi-educated decision. Without party labels, elections would take place much like the judicial elections; where the nominees have to be nonpartisan and therefore, cannot have a label by their name. Those that do vote in this type of election generally pick the candidate whose name appears at the top of the ballot. As a result, Montana prints several different ballots with different candidates’ names printed first. The fact that states have been driven to do this is proof that party labels are necessary. Without them, voters would simply play a mental game of eeny meeny miny moe to choose which candidate they would vote for. Because of how uneducated, misinformed and uncaring today’s voters are, I believe that party labels are a necessary evil in order to have elected officials that aren’t elected based purely on happenstance.

11/19/2015
Sidney/MT
Sarah
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
Washington’s fear of political parties was justified. He predicted tensions between parties “sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention” and this has happened just as he feared. The problem is that rivalries between parties lead to gridlock. Parties only care about pushing their own agendas and gaining support and funds for their own programs. Instead of working together to find a solution that helps the whole country, their goal is to beat the other party without compromise. Dawson Church, in his Huffington Post article “Gridlockracy,” describes our government: “This system of ‘checks and balances’ designed by the country’s Founding Fathers sometimes results in gridlock, with government unable to enact any significant legislation…We live in a gridlockracy.” Squabbling political parties have slowed down the progress of our government significantly. As each party instinctively rejects their opponent’s ideas, the parties become polarized and have even more widely different ideas and policies. This is not conducive to ratifying helpful programs for the American people. The good of the people has been overshadowed by the good of the party.

11/19/2015
Sidney, MT
Aubrey
Mr. Faulhaber Sidney High School
Washington’s fear of political parties was definitely justified. The real issue here is that political parties have prevented people from choosing officials that truly reflect their opinions. Political parties have not helped the U.S. become more efficient at lawmaking. I believe that political parties just create unhealthy competition where candidates are more concerned with what the party wants and not with what is best for the country. Eric Black who writes for the Minnesota Post has pointed out that it has seemed like people have been voting for the lesser of two evils in recent elections. This does not allow candidates who actually represent the majority of Americans to get nominated for office. Voters usually only vote for a candidate based on the “R” or “D” after their name. Although these labels can help a voter choose a candidate who vaguely represents their beliefs, I think that if these labels had never been there in the first place, voters could have developed their own way of choosing a candidate who best represents their beliefs. Political parties are only good at helping candidates get elected and help like-minded officials align which the main article mentions. Although political parties are inevitable, I think they evolve into harmful organizations.

11/19/2015
Sidney, MT
Skylar
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
Our Founding Father, George Washington, was not justified in his fear of political parties. Quite frankly, the heart of the issue is that political parties are a necessary element of action in America and are completely unavoidable. The first very important aspect of political parties is split ticket voting. Without political parties, the largely uniformed public would have a much greater chance of voting split tickets which would clearly create a divided government and hinder any continuity and progress between the legislative and executive branch. Moreover, political parties are unavoidable. A completely nonpartisan government is only possible in a perfect America. People with like ideologies naturally gravitate toward one another, thus the creation of parties. It’s not valid to say that the two major political parties are exclusionary. The two parties are so broad that anyone in America can find their niche. Finally, political parties are necessary so people have a general idea what it is they are getting with a respective candidate. Nothing is more dangerous than having no idea what you are voting for. The party label provides the “blueprint” of a candidate if you will and is of the utmost importance. Getting rid of political parties is foolish because partisan government is necessary and inevitable.

11/18/2015
Sidney Montana
Lindsey
Mr. Faulhaber
I think the heart of the issue is party efficiency. I believe that George Washington was wrong in fearing political parties arising in the United States, as Jeremy Quattlebaum said in his response. I think that without having labels on ballots, like judicial races, that elections would be extremely unreliable. People would randomly vote for candidates with no idea what they stand for. I think that even if and uneducated voter were to vote, they could make a fair judgment by knowing whether a curtain candidates is democratic or republican. As a two party system, we are able to elect a candidate that closely shares our views, beliefs, and motives on curtain issues. The two-party systems provide a stable balance by accommodating varied interests and opinions. Since each party consists of organized groups and individual voters, it is necessary to consider a broad range of interests and opinions when making political decisions. In order to receive their continued support, it is best for each party to include its supporters' interests (study.com). Now that parties have been around since the 1800, I believe there is no way party systems would completely disappear. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. If they were to get rid of parties today, I think there would be a lot of fighting and a bunch of nothing getting done if we put people, with completely polar views on many different issues, into power. Opponents, like Washington, argue that parties break us into factions of individualism and force people to vote on promised alliances rather than the best interest of the people. In contrast to that I believe that two party system helps promote the public good by informing understandable political information, discourages sudden shifts that will affect government stability, and allowing political participation in the way our government is run.

11/18/2015
Sidney/MT
Chris
Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I think that Washington’s fear of political parties was legitimate, but I think that political parties’ existence in the United States is necessary. Certain political party powers, such as the control-heavy political machines of the late 19th century, have been drastically reduced by the Hatch Act. Yet, parties do have an influence on voters simply because of the ‘(R)’ or the ‘(D)’ by a candidate’s name. It’s a well-known fact that American voters are ignorant as far as knowing exactly what each and every candidate stands for, and the party labels that show up on ballots can give them a basic understanding of where a candidate’s position is on big issues. I think that without party labels, people that don’t know the candidates would be taking a shot in the dark when voting in elections. Furthermore, I also believe that open primaries make it possible to elect the best sort of government officials: moderates that can see both sides of issues, but still hold beliefs with the party of choice. As far as the push for term limits is concerned, I think they would have a positive effect on the lawmaking capability of Congress. Mixing ‘veteran’ Congressmen and women and younger ones helps make sure that all age variances of Americans have a strong and effective voice in the lawmaking process.

11/18/2015
Sidney, MT
Shanan
Zueger
Was Washington’s Fear of Political Parties Justified? Personally, I agree with Washington. Parties are factions in which citizens of the United States join and then become divided by their differentiating ideologies. Of course, we have Americans who identify as independents but we also have Americans who identify as either Democrat or Republican, which are at two different ends of the spectrum. Evidence has been shown that most people are not radical Democrats or Republicans and are generally more moderate than what the stereotypes lead on. However, we have also been shown that in order to win primary elections you have to be quite radical in order to be influential and to gain votes for your election. Obviously, authoritarian style governments get a lot done because it is not a representative democracy and there is only one party who makes decisions regarding policy. In America, we divide Congress into two parties, and the laws have to be modified to agree with both parties, and if the parties don’t agree nothing gets done. It is counterproductive to have a two party system in place if we are looking to “get things done”. Often times though, we see that either one of the parties might win over the House or Senate which can speed up the process of laws getting passed and policy being enacted. While the two party system can make election time a lot easier, the reality is that there are a vast majority of United States citizens who are now identifying as independents and the Democrats or Republicans may not represent their ideologies as accurately as they should.

11/18/2015
Sidney, MT
Rian
Mr. Falhuber/ Sidney High School
In Washington’s closing address he spoke against political parties. Washington feared that political parties were more like factions and would hinder people from voting for the best candidate based on a title. However, I believe that political parties were created so that people could pick a candidate that best agrees with their own beliefs. A sad fact about today’s generation is that they don’t really care about politics, which can be seen in the increase of independent voters. The media uses horse race coverage that rarely covers the true contentions of a candidate and only cover the issues that will get higher ratings. This leaves the American people uneducated in voting practices. Having a political party identification gives voters a better idea of what each candidate represents, which leads to a slightly higher educated response when voting. In a perfect world, where people consistently voted with using actual knowledge about a candidate political parties wouldn’t be needed. In the world we live in, there is a need for political parties that allow voters to gather the slightest bit of information to cast an informed vote.

11/18/2015
Sidney, MT
Camden
Brad Faulhaber
George Washington‘s fear of political parties was perfectly justified. A modern example of his fear of party competitiveness is in the Tea Party, which has already removed one of our speakers from office because he wasn’t conservative enough. This radical influence allows a high level of elitist policy, as the more powerful parties select those who think most like them. The available candidates have been shown to be part of the polar extremes of each party, which is hardly representative of the moderate majority of the American people. While many say doing away with party labels would create an influx of uninformed voting, it could be easily remedied by including a short bio about each candidate either on the ballot or in a pamphlet given to voters alongside the packet. While people might not use said pamphlets, but they have the right to either use or ignore them. The issue of not having time to vote comes into play here, but if it is assumed that a solution is found that allows everyone to have the time to vote, such as the voting holiday idea, then the concept of background information being included with the ballots is plausible. Those who aren’t lazy and get out and vote would then be given the equipment to make an informed decision on which candidate best represents them, and with the removal of party bias they wouldn’t have that sense of obligation to an organization that they may disagree with on certain issues.

11/18/2015
Sidney, MT
Shanan
Zueger
Was Washington’s Fear of Political Parties Justified? Personally, I agree with Washington. Parties are factions in which citizens of the United States join and then become divided by their differentiating ideologies. Of course, we have Americans who identify as independents but we also have Americans who identify as either Democrat or Republican, which are at two different ends of the spectrum. Evidence has been shown that most people are not radical Democrats or Republicans and are generally more moderate than what the stereotypes lead on. However, we have also been shown that in order to win primary elections you have to be quite radical in order to be influential and to gain votes for your election. Obviously, authoritarian style governments get a lot done because it is not a representative democracy and there is only one party who makes decisions regarding policy. In America, we divide Congress into two parties, and the laws have to be modified to agree with both parties, and if the parties don’t agree nothing gets done. It is counterproductive to have a two party system in place if we are looking to “get things done”. Often times though, we see that either one of the parties might win over the House or Senate which can speed up the process of laws getting passed and policy being enacted. While the two party system can make election time a lot easier, the reality is that there are a vast majority of United States citizens who are now identifying as independents and the Democrats or Republicans may not represent their ideologies as accurately as they should.

11/18/2015
Sidney, MT
Larren
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
The core of the issue on this is that whether political parties help or hurt the United States. And I believe that political parties help the States because I think that by having them helps people decide if they agree with certain candidates even if they don’t know them. People are going to vote either way so by having parties and labels on ballots brings people to the ballot box. Coming from the Annenberg speak out page, George Washington was wrong with his fear of having political parties. People are going to stick with others that think the same as them so eventually it was going to happen and it has helped the states decide who they most are comparable too even if they have never heard of them. Political parties have helped this nation since right after Washington’s presidency because people chose a side they most agreed with and helped officials create laws that weren’t one sided. You see that today too! Officials from both sides of the aisle get together and compromise laws and Acts to help the people and make sure they are not bias or one sided.

11/18/2015
Sidney/Montana
LaTasha
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
The two-party system that the United States is known for allows people to take sides with the party that most reflects their interests, beliefs, values, and stances on issues. It gives Americans a chance to figure out where they stand and be a part of a group of people with the same thoughts. People who disagree with the use of political parties argue that when people don’t agree with either side they have to vote for the lesser of the two evils, and if they vote for a minor party, they believe it is the same as a wasted vote (MinnPost). I believe, however, that everybody should be able to pinpoint a candidate that MOST reflects their beliefs and thoughts because there are different levels of party affiliation and some candidates are more moderate and some are more hardcore than others. I think because representatives are chosen to represent a group of people that parties do affect the lawmaking process. Those representatives do their best to affect the lawmaking process in a manner that reflects the people they are representing. Both parties have the betterment of the country and everybody in it in mind, but have different ideas on how to achieve that. Because we need to keep the enhancement of the country in mind, I think term limits are a good thing. Having the same people hold the chairs doesn’t allow for new, fresh ideas and in the end I don’t think they will get anywhere with new policies because everything will be the same from these people as the Annenberg article also mentioned. Therefore, I don’t think Washington’s fear of political parties is justified. He feared that the country as a whole would not be best represented by selfish parties, but again, the parties are trying to better the country as a whole. Either way, people are going to have different ideas and band together in the best interest of the country and I don’t think that political parties harm the best interest in any way.

11/18/2015
Sidney/Montana
Danny
Mr Faulhaber/Sidney High School
George Washington fear of political parties was not justified. We also should take into account how parties have shaped and affected our country’s politics. The American Dream has been realized generation after generation because of the two party system when we look at the history of parties in America and the powers they hold in policymaking. Since Washington and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated over the ratification of the Constitution. The formation of the Republican Party to combat slavery in our nation and their ideological party goals. They have one thing in common, they have all wanted to push an agenda. Whenever there has been a major issue to face our country we have had two sides, or two parties, who have shown the two major viewpoints of said issue. The researched presented by Annenberg says how the lawmaking process is long and complex before a bill is finally presented at the President’s desk. Having parties in the lawmaking process makes sure that there is coherent debate and discussion over bills and other potential laws that helps them to formulate a more rounded and agreed upon solution that takes from both parties instead of a single one. Even though parties do push an agenda and they tend to only support people who identify with said party, they still have been instrumental in the development of laws and policy. Looking back to George Washington’s fears, during the foundation of our country when the only two parties were over the ratification of the Constitution, to today where the two parties offer the liberal and conservative side to many of America’s issues. I believe our president was wrong in his fears and political parties have helped to grow and develop policy and lawmaking throughout every generation of American history and has driven our country continuously to achieving the American Dream.

11/18/2015
Sidney, Montana
Shelby
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I think that George Washington’s fear of political parties was unjustified. The Annenberg Speak Out article written by Jeremy Quattlebaum, says, “And while political parties have not become a force of tyranny, as the first president warned, they have become integral to the political process.” The heart of the issue is what role, if any, political parties should have in determining government policy. In my opinion, by having two parties, citizens always have an option of two different candidates in local, state, and federal elections. Eric Black writes in his article for Minnesota Post, “But these poll ratings remind us that our American party system provides us with only two meaningful choices in most general elections.” Additionally, by having both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, only bills that are truly good end up being passed. Others may argue that this means the government does not accomplish much, but I see that as being an advantage to my side. It is better to have fewer laws that are in the best interest of the American population, than to have many laws that are not beneficial. Having two parties allows the legislative branch to have checks and balances internally so that the laws passed are both Constitutional and in the best interest of Americans. Finally, having two parties does create competition, however both Democrats and Republicans are trying to create policies which would make America a better country. There is a Democratic and Republican solution to each problem, which gives the government alternatives for which policy would be the best to adapt. In conclusion, political parties give options to voters, create checks and balances in legislature, and offer two solutions to each government problem.

11/16/2015
Murrieta,CA
Davin
Jabro,Creekside High School
Congress is there to insure that the president doesn't have too much power but that being said, this doesn't mean that the party system is effective, in my opinion.The Party system was created so that not one party would have the most power.

11/15/2015
Irving/Texas
Ryan
Bradley/Nimitz
The party system found within the United States lawmaking process has been a major setback and oversimplification of American politics. While convenient for voters that wish to simply vote along party lines, this black and white style of thinking has led to lines drawn in the sand within both the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States. This gridlock has created political leaders that are left entirely to the whims of their respective party, rather than leaders that will make their own decisions and do what is truly best for the people of America. So in summary, the American political party division has led to an oversimplified look at the complex processes of Congress and law making, while creating politicians more concerned with ensuring they keep party leaders happy than with doing what is best for the American people.

11/14/2015
Irving/Tx
Daisy
Bradley/ Nimitz
The party system keeps the lawmaking process competitive, a continuous battle to gather the proper votes. Seniority helps maintain traditions and ideals- however, that also means that the legislative process is more stagnant than it could be. Term limits could solve that aspect of the legislative process, regulating the rotations and opening opportunities for a more modern approach of governing. Washington was right to bring attention to parties and what they could possibly do in terms of conflict but parties have also made the legislative process more considerate of the public and individuals themselves, giving everyone a voice and advocating key issues.

11/12/2015
Irving,Texas
Nicholas
Bradley/Nimitz
The Party system affects the lawmaking process because it does matter if the president is democrat or republican, for both public opinion and in the creation of a divided or a unitary government. Especially in such periods in the mid 1900's when congress was dominated by republicans, and there would be several instances of gridlock when it came to passing legislation in committees. I do believe seniority is significant in committees, because they have them most experience, and with that they tend to make more wise decisions than junior members. I don't believe that Washington's fear of political parties becoming tyrannic to have come true, yet, because political parties have started to become more of a part of congress making it's power rise.

11/11/2015
Irving/Tx
Lexia Martinez
Bradley/Nimitz
I personally believe that the Party System is beginning to interrupt the law making process in a negative way. We all know congress is run by mostly rich people in each party so how are these people even relatable to the common American citizen or worth it. However, there is really not much you can do to change the system, it is too integrated in our society now. Lastly I believe Washington's argument can be justified, because the Party System in a way has corrupted our government.

11/11/2015
Irving/Texas
Leslie
Bradley/Nimitz
The party system affects the lawmaking process in a negative way. Even if there is a unified government, the president and the congress may have different ideological views about policy-making,and this can slow down the lawmaking process just as (the divided government) when the president and congress are from different parties. Seniority hurts the legislative process because lawmakers will not bring new ideas to the legislative process, and will stay with the old ones. President George Washington feared that the rise of political parties will lead to tyranny. According to the article, “...And while political parties have not become a force of tyranny, as the first president warned, they have become integral to the political process…” Washington’s fear of political parties being tyrannical was not justified. There shouldn’t be term limits on committee chairmanship because experienced lawmakers know how congress function and for the new lawmakers learning the complexity of the legislative process takes time.

11/11/2015
irving/tx
luz
Bradley/Nimitz
The United States has only two major political parties which are the democratic an the republicans. The affect the party system has on lawmaking process is positive because it contributes equilibrium power among the system. The seniority system in the U.S. House of Representatives is a collection of formal and informal rules and norms according to which long-serving members possess more procedural privileges and control more resources. There should not be term limits on committee chairmanship because members should have the right to leave the committee to which they have been assigned, either to transfer to a different committee or to reduce their total number of committee assignments. At the end we can see that Washington`s fear of political parties was justified.

11/11/2015
Diamond Bar/California
LucasP4
Wong/Lorbeer
The party system affects the American lawmaking process because if the President is in a different party than the Congress, then agreements may take longer to accomplish. For example, Congress will probably not agree with the President’s ideas and will take a longer time to pass laws. The President may even have to spend more time negotiating for laws he wants to pass. The President and Congress would have trouble coming up with compromises since they have different ideas on how to shape the U.S. Although, political parties can also benefit the lawmaking process in a positive way if the congress is in the same party as the president. Then they will agree on most things and pass laws more efficiently and without as much haggling.

11/11/2015
Irving/TX
Luis M
Bradley/Nimitz
The party system in the United States has its history dating back to when George Washington when he said that political parties are dangerous. So far today, the Republicans and Democrats have been the two main parties and their different ideas to improve the country. The party system can affect the lawmaking process in a positive way because the president can be from one party and the majority of members in Congress can be from the other, that can lead to bills not becoming laws by a veto from from the president and a huge feuds in Congress. Seniority is really helpful for committees because the experience is there and the majority of the time these seniors have a say in Congress. A position in committees should be judged on the way he or she can cooperate with the law, every political party wants to take control of both the executive and legislative, and committees with senior representation can work very well. In all, Washington speech on political parties was a warning sign to let the future know that the rivalry of parties can lead to bad decisions to come.

11/9/2015
Irving/Texas
Erica
Bradley/Nimitz
I feel the party system makes a positive impact. The debate between different ideologies keeps the American public engaged in politics. Furthermore, it provides a balance. Washington's fear of factions is understandable. He feared a powerful faction may overshadow minority factions, thus not addressing everyone's needs and only benefiting tyrants. However, cases like this are rare. There are smaller parties, but they make their views known. In fact, politicians like Bernie Sanders who don't identify exclusively to the two most popular parties still have the ability to be outspoken and tie their views with other parties.

11/8/2015
Irving/Texas
Gabriela
Bradley/Nimitz
The party system affects the lawmaking process in a positive way. They can balance and keep everything under control when something might get out of hand. Whenever they feel like either congress is getting too powerful they keep it equal. Also, whenever the president and Congress are from the same party they apply checks and balances to equalize it and control it. But, whenever they are in opposite parties or they are enemies they try to do everything to balance it. Seniority hurts the legislative process because it limits the time a legislator has served in congress and on a particular committee. I think there should be term limits that apply to everyone to make it equal and not only to minority chairs. They only limit the minority chairs because the higher ones are the ones with a lot of power and importance so they try to keep them longer. The minority chairs have a lot to share but they don’t have the chance to show it and make something out of it because they have limited terms. Washington was scared of political parties being justified because either one of them was going to get too powerful or too weak. He wanted to keep everything the same; without any problems or preferences. Power or preferences was going to cause problems between parties and that was what George Washington feared.

11/6/2015
Irving/Texas
Julia A
Bradley/Nimitz
Party system affects the law making process in a positive way.Because the point of having the party system is so that the majority of all Americans are represented. The Party System may cause the passing of laws to slow, but it is necessary to have different people with different thoughts on a topic deliberate it. It is better to pass a law after discussing it thoroughly with everyone rather than just passing a bad law. So it gives more equal voice to Americans and helps to show all opinions. Therefore I believe that party system affects the law making process in a positive way.

11/6/2015
Irving/Texas
Jose
Bradley/Nimitz
Parties effect the legislature in a positive way because it clearly shows how the people feel when they elect their representatives for Congress. Even though if the public doesn't like the President's action we can elect a Congress that is the opposite party than him so that they can put a stop on his actions. Seniority does help the legislative process because this system allows for the congressman with more experience and knowledge to be leader. Also eliminates any possible newcomers to become a chairman without any experience of the committee. This also goes along with terms of the chairman which should not be limited because they are trying to make a living and their profession is at advising others from their position they earned it. Washington did have a point in believing that we have to be weary about political parties, but the political parties are so vast that no one can dominate all the other ones.

11/6/2015
Irving/Texas
Jose
Bradley/Nimitz
Parties effect the legislature in a positive way because it clearly shows how the people feel when they elect their representatives for Congress. Even though if the public doesn't like the President's action we can elect a Congress that is the opposite party than him so that they can put a stop on his actions. Seniority does help the legislative process because this system allows for the congressman with more experience and knowledge to be leader. Also eliminates any possible newcomers to become a chairman without any experience of the committee. This also goes along with terms of the chairman which should not be limited because they are trying to make a living and their profession is at advising others from their position they earned it. Washington did have a point in believing that we have to be weary about political parties, but the political parties are so vast that no one can dominate all the other ones.

11/6/2015
Irving/Tx
Lija
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that the Party System is affecting the law making process in a negative way. In congress, most of the time congressman vote just party based we didn't have parties then there wouldn't be as much of a challenge and it would be do what you think is best.When a law is not passed, it is for sure that a significant amount of people did not support the law, no matter the party.. It seems like most bills are argued over just because of the party that oppose it do not like the party that supports it. If their was more respect for members of the opposite party, then the system might be more effective.

11/5/2015
Irving/Texas
Desarae
Bradley/Nimitz
In regards to the party system that we have put in place , I feel as though it impacts our lawmaking process in a positive way. Furthermore in reference, term limits being put on the committee of chairmanship is very much necessary. For example, the GOP policy institutes a term limit of three terms for chairmanship, by doing so this allows and introduces new ideas to make their way into our legislative process here in the United States. As following, seniority in our legislative process helps rather than hurts, because of the enhanced experience the person will have to oppose to a newcomer in the ranks who does not have as much experience.

11/4/2015
Irving/TX
Caroline
Bradley/Nimitz
Throughout the history of this country, there have been many instances where the majority of Congress and the president are not of the same party. Due to these opposing views, the legislation process may delayed on certain pieces of legislation. Although the opposing viewpoints between the majority of Congress and the president may seem problematic because it delays the legislation process, it’s actually essential. The opposing viewpoints stimulate debates and arguments about that legislation. The debates are necessary because the opportunity to discuss the benefits and flaws of the legislation. Likewise, if the majority of Congress and the president are of the same party, then there will be less debating. Without debating about a certain piece of legislation, then Congress may pass a law filled with flaws. Therefore, the party system positively affects the lawmaking process. Seniority helps the legislative process because parties are considering how long a legislator has served in Congress when deciding who should chair that committee. Parties are selecting committee chairmen based solely on their experience. Term limits on committee chairmanship should exist. The chairmen of committees are chosen based on how long they’ve served in Congress, so by the time a legislator is chosen as a chairman of a committee, they have already made their mark on Congress. By imposing term limits on committee chairmen, Congress is granting the opportunity for new members to make their way up the line to being the chair of a committee. Because of the warnings and advice he gave to the American people in his farewell speech, Washington was able to shape the format of this country. Washington believed that political parties would lead the country onto a path of tyranny. Fortunately, because Washington warned the country years ago, tyranny should no longer be a fear in the US.

11/4/2015
Irving/TX
Eric
Bradley/Nimitz
The party system's impact on the lawmaking process can be seen as something undesirable to people that just want to get things done without delay, but it is because of the party system that we have debate over different bills be presented. Without debate many bills may become a law without the thorough viewing, or understanding of them. It's good to have debate because it helps pick out things that are questionable, and can amend them. Seniority helps the legislative process because it puts experienced individuals at the head of debate, but that could also be bad because new politicians wouldn't have much of a voice. There shouldn't be term limits because if there are then the people who are good at making multiple big impacts are limited in the amount of good they can do. Washington's fear of parties is understandable, but without them then the government would be more flawed.

11/4/2015
Elizabethtown PA
Joana
Sostack
I do not think the party system impedes the legislative powers of Congress because it is important to have multiple viewpoints and opinions. Although there may be consequences to it, such as delays, it is still a good idea for all people to look over the future laws and submit their part and ideas. Legislatures should be limited to their terms so upcoming generations can make a change and advance to modern ideas. The party system has given representatives the opportunity to voice theirs and their peoples' opinions to form a better government.

11/4/2015
Elizabethtown PA
Kyra
Sostack
The party system does make it easier for a citizen to align themselves with a candidate in an election. If they know their opinions are more Republican, them they can focus more on the Republican candidates. But in the legislative process, it does seem like party cause lawmaking to slow down. It seems like most bills are argued over just because of the party that oppose it do not like the party that supports it. If their was more respect for members of the oppisite party, then perhaps the system might be more effective.

11/4/2015
Elizabethtown
Mitchell
Sostack
As we creep farther and farther into the twenty first century, I believe that the Party System is beginning to interrupt the law making process in a negative way. In congress, most of the time congressman vote just party based, so they can be "team players." Like really are we in elementary school? Also, congress is run by mostly rich people in each party so how are these people even relatable to the common American citizen. However, with saying all this, there is really not much you can do to change the system, it is too integrated in our society now. Seniority is helpful, although some may say no. Seniority allows for people with experience and knowledge to lead the law making process. A rookie in congress would not have that same knowledge and it could lead to disastrous bills being passed. This fits right in with chairmanship. Chairmanship terms only cause unnecessary leadership changes at bad times. This creates havaoc. To wrap up I believe Washingtons argument can be justified, because the Party System in a way has corrupted our government.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown PA
Brendan
Sostack
I think that the party system has affected the process of lawmaking positively. The idea of the party system was to make sure that everyone's opinions would be represented. With everyone's different views, it can be difficult to pass laws quickly, but I think that is a pro. With time spent on discussing laws, it should become something that the people would like. I believe that seniority does not benefit the legislative process. Just because you have seniority, doesn't always mean you're better than someone with less experience. I think there should be term limits on committee chairmanship because someone in that kind of power, should not just be allowed to hold on to all of it for a long time. I think it is great that the GOP has adopted the three term policy. I think that Washingtons fears of political parties are legitimate. Having different party's can be a difficulty in lawmaking, but overall, I think it has many benefits.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown/Pa
Matt
Sostack/Elizabethtown
I think that political parties hurt the lawmaking progress because people will just vote against the other side because they are the opponents. Your not going to vote for something made by someone else because then you would be going against your side, if we didn't have parties then there wouldn't be as much of a challenge and it would be do what you think is best. Senority, in my opinion, helps the legislative process because those people know what's going on and how it works, if there were new people in there the process would move much slower because their not as experienced. I do have to say the term limit is good because it gets people in and out and active. Having someone who knows what they're doing is good but if they essentially get the job handed to them they might not take it as serious. Washington's fear was somewhat right because the political parties will argue and go against what the other says, and that slows down the law making process and at points stops everything and nothing gets done.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown/Pa
Matt
Sostack/Elizabethtown
I think that political parties hurt the lawmaking progress because people will just vote against the other side because they are the opponents. Your not going to vote for something made by someone else because then you would be going against your side, if we didn't have parties then there wouldn't be as much of a challenge and it would be do what you think is best. Senority, in my opinion, helps the legislative process because those people know what's going on and how it works, if there were new people in there the process would move much slower because their not as experienced. I do have to say the term limit is good because it gets people in and out and active. Having someone who knows what they're doing is good but if they essentially get the job handed to them they might not take it as serious. Washington's fear was somewhat right because the political parties will argue and go against what the other says, and that slows down the law making process and at points stops everything and nothing gets done.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown
Katarina
Sostack
When we have a two party system, our government seems to have two sides and not much room for anything in the middle. Washington was right in his concerns. I feel the two party system has become a bit of a unwinnable war in our government that favors each side for a few years then switches when it doesn't work. There should be people in charge in the legislative process. Tthey should have proper checks and balances, but also means to get things done.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown/PA
Connor
Sostack/Elizabethtown Area High School
The party system affects the lawmaking process in a positive way. Political parties help citizens to align with other people that share in similar views. Without political parties it would be hard to know who to vote for or who to support without understanding every single one of a candidates viewpoints. Also, without political parties it would be almost impossible to predict if a bill would be supported, because without knowing each representatives individual view on a topic you would never know the majorities viewpoint. Seniority can hurt the legislative process because those with better ideas and better judgement may have to wait years until they reach a status where they can make an impact. It makes sense to have experienced people on a committee, but an experienced member does not always have to be in complete control and can still offer valid information even when they are not directly in charge of the committee. Term limits are a valid way of curving a leaders time in office, and are in place throughout a majority of the legislative body and it makes sense to also have term limits on the committees in charge of reviewing bills. George Washington had a justified view of political parties. He knew the destruction that could be caused by two groups with opposing ideas and the extents to which people will go to protect what they believe in.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown
Alexis
Sostack
The party system is positive and necessary for the legislative process. It gives a more equal voice to Americans and helps to show all opinions. Although it can slow the passage of bills, it ensures that each factor and opinion concerning a bill is weighed. Seniority hurts the legislative process. Someone with more years of experience is not necessarily more qualified. Having chairpersons based on seniority can prevent fresh ideas from taking root, all because a “more experienced,” but less modern, innovative individual disagrees. There should be term limits on committee chairmanship. A cycle of chairpersons is good for the productivity and flow of a committee, preventing it from becoming stagnant. Washington’s fears were not wholly unjustified, because political parties have caused issues. However, they certainly have been a "force of tyranny" as he feared. Political parties have ultimately been a source of positive discussion and change within our country.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown PA
Allie
Sostack
I think the party system affects the lawmaking process in a positive way. I think it is important to have different viewpoints in Congress to represent all the citizens. The Party System may cause the passing of laws to slow, but it is necessary to have different people with different thoughts on a topic deliberate it. It is better to have a law be discussed thoroughly and take longer than it is to have a law barely discussed but passed fast. Seniority is a hindrance to this system. The decision of committee chairs and members should not rest solely on how long a legislator has served. There should be a term limit on committee chairmanship. A term limit will minimize the chances of a person having too much power. I do not think Washington's fear of political parties can be justified. The Party System has allowed the different views of the citizens to be addressed through their representatives.

11/3/2015
Elizabethtown PA
Hannah
Sostack
I do not think that the party system affects the lawmaking process in a negative way. The point of having the party system is so that the majority of all Americans are represented. Some would say that they do have a negative affect because laws are difficult to pass, but I would disagree. When a law is not passed, it is obvious that a significant amount of people did not support the law, no matter the party. From that, we can determine that a large number of Americans would also be unhappy if it became law. Even if you take away the party system, people will still have their opinions. Some people will still have conservative views while others will still be liberal. I believe that the opposing viewpoints make for a stronger, better balanced government and enrich the lawmaking process.

11/2/2015
Murrieta CA
McKenzie Milligan
Creekside/Jabro
The party system used currently can't easily be addressed as having a positive or negative affect on the lawmaking process. This is due to some beneficial laws not being able to be passed due to the party system; however, there are some laws that shouldn't be passed and have been prevented by the same system as well. The system is at its higher points of efficiency when there are more senior committee chair members. These members have had the experience through their years to make these wise choices on passing laws and I believe that if a term limit was set on committee chairmanship, then the members wouldn't gain enough experience or seniority to make the best decisions for U.S laws. Though president Washington had good intentions for his warning, it felt a bit hypocritical considering that, he partook in the same actions during the birth of the U.S.

10/30/2015
Murrieta/CA
Marco
Mr Jabro/ Creekside
The party system used currently can't easily be addressed as having a positive or negative affect on the lawmaking process. This is due to some beneficial laws not being able to be passed due to the party system; however, there are some laws that shouldn't be passed and have been prevented by the same system as well. The system is at its higher points of efficiency when there are more senior committee chair members. These members have had the experience through their years to make these wise choices on passing laws and I believe that if a term limit was set on committee chairmanship, then the members wouldn't gain enough experience or seniority to make the best decisions for U.S laws. Though president Washington had good intentions for his warning, it felt a bit hypocritical considering that, he partook in the same actions during the birth of the U.S.

Related News
Related Resources
Share