The article, “Campaigning to Extend, or End, One-Party Rule,” from the New York Times, is about the danger of having one-party or good that can come from one party. The Democrats have won control of Minnesota’s state government by flipping both the legislative chambers, pushing through tax increases on the wealthy, accepting Obama’s Medicaid expansion for the lower class and approving same-sex marriage. Now the Republican candidate is campaigning brutally to show that the Democrats are overreaching in Minnesota. The trend toward a one-party control, causes states to become extreme and become the testing grounds for the specific party’s policies, for example, the policies the Democrats passed in Colorado and the Republicans passed in Wisconsin. Some say a divided government with two parties is better, others say this will cause a gridlock or government shutdown. Some say that one-party rule will prevent extreme policy making and allow full control of a state, and others argue that this will be unbalanced and result in out of control spending.
This article talks about the two-party system and how people believe that it should stay this way or become a one-party system. Democrats and Republicans are campaigning to become their state legislature representative so that there party can have control of states so they can be the majority party. Currently, 23 states are Republican and 13 are Democratic and this shows the most amount of states being under one-party since the last six decades.They are using resources for get-out-the-vote and are phone banking and canvassing, like House of Representative Joe Radinovich of Minnesota. The ones who campaigning to extend one-party rule think it prevents a gridlock and allows changes to made for the better because the party is actually given a chance to do so instead of being stuck in gridlock, like the government shutdown in 2011. The two-party system, however, prevents one party from having too much control and from spending too much money.
No comments:
Post a Comment