On the Benefits of a Divided Government

I’ve written several times previously that if the American political landscape must be dominated by a duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, I’m happiest with the government when neither party has a monopoly in Washington.

A recent post at Donklephant does a far more eloquent job than I have at describing the beneits of such divided government:

1. Divided Government restrains the growth of spending (Niskanen, Van Doren, Vedder)
2. Divided government results in better and longer lasting legislation. Major reforms and structural changes (Reagan tax reform, Clinton welfare reform) that have a passed under a divided government are more likely to survive being undone by subsequent congressional action than major reforms passed by a unified single party government. (Niskanen, Slivinski)
3. Major Wars are less likely under a divided government. (Slivinski, Niskanen)
4. Congressional oversight of congressional and executive behavior is stronger, and constitutional rights are better protected under divided government (Mann & Ornstein)
5. Constitutional checks and balances envisioned by the founding fathers are undermined by single party united government and strengthened by divided government (Levinson & Pilde - pdf)

Living in Connecticut, I have little hope of a “vote for divided government” as it’s called in the Donklephant post counting. But I can still hope that the country is mostly purple next year, rather than blue-violet.