Political split: pros and cons!


The United States Congress is the legislature of the federal government of the United States (where they make and pass laws).

It's made up of two parts: the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Following the latest elections in November, different political parties have control of the two parts: Democrats have maintained control of the Senate and, whilst some seats are still to be confirmed, it looks like Republicans will control the House of Representatives.

Comments (16)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • What are the pros and cons of political division?!! We know that there is strength in union and when there is no union there is no strength. Among the negatives of the political division: the weakness of our cause before the world, the disintegration of the people, the weakness of the economy, and we have difficulty moving around and seeing our people, and also the impact of this division on the division of states, and each country has a ruler or family that governs it. In my opinion, there are no positives to this situation in which we live. How can you deal with people who have different views at work?! In my opinion, it must be respected because everyone has a different opinion, and we must not be intolerant. On the contrary, we must stick to each other in order to succeed in work.

    1. honest_cat do you think split this model will work when it comes to passing laws?

    2. Yes, I agree with you, but is it possible to look at it from another point of view regarding your saying that there are no positives, the two political sides often do not agree, because each side takes decisions in relation to its interests, so I see that division can help in making the right decisions and enacting appropriate laws for the state. And her reputation is better.

    3. Thank you for your thoughts! Different people will always have different opinions. There will be areas on which they agree and others one on which they do not. The key is to listen to one another and as you say not be intolerant.
      Do you think you would be able to work through a political problem with someone who had different beliefs or values? How might you go about it?

      1. I hope that I would be able to go through it. It's because I'd rather keep morality above all the principles of life. This would ultimately make me tolerant and I shall easily be able to work with people who have diverse ideas, beliefs and political point of views. I'd have the chance to experience different ways of thinking and make a better choice

      2. There is a great weakness in the political division, and this will lead to the emergence of problems, and I can convince other people by clarifying the negatives and positives of both opinions, and this is how I will be able to choose the right decision

  • The pros and cons in a political split when laws are made and pass, Its that not everyone (Including citizens or people in jobs) may not agree, and people related to that conversation may disagree. To be honest, it only matters if the people around you agree or disagree to the laws that are made.

  • Is political division good or bad? A union is strong, and a union without strength is weak. There are several negatives associated with the political division: the weakening of our cause before the world, the disintegration of our people, the weakening of our economy, and difficulty moving around and seeing our people, as well as the impact of this division on the division of states, and each country has a ruler or family in charge. We live in a situation where I don't see any positives. When working with people who hold different views, how do you deal with them? The fact that everyone has different opinions must be respected, and we should not be intolerant. Our success at work depends on sticking together.

    1. Thank you for commenting, But the political disintegration has advantages that not all countries support the same issue, but if we are united on the same issue and they choose the wrong option and agree on it and support it, it will cause a great uprising of the peoples, which leads to revolutionsand uprisings

  • A political split has advantages such as;
    *Two heads are better than one so two parties would solve more problems than one party.
    *Opinions of different people will be brought up.
    *Efficient decision making since debates shall be given more attention.
    *Laws passed favour all people not people of one party only since even other parties shall be involved in the making of laws.
    *Equality could be promoted better
    *Any involvement of in breaking the law of any party members shall be reported by opposite party leaders. e.g corruption actions.
    *There shall always be conflicts due to difference in views
    *Decision making is slow due long debates.
    *Poor service provision since the parties might concentrate on fighting each other
    People of different perspectives can only work together when they respect each other, keep true to the law, cooperating to achieve their political goals, putting their different differences to hold, putting the interests of the people first and serving the people with one heart

    1. You think that two heads are better than one but in political splits peoke will think of showing a bad image to the public of the other side so I don't think they will work together,so can u give example on how two political parties will be able to work together or do political parties in country work together?

      1. They can work together by putting their differences aside and putting people's interests first and respecting each other with integrity,further more forming a coalition government where they work together and positions are divided according to the size of the parties for example in the Rainbow coalition in Ireland that compose dog three parties one large,one medium,and one small and the positions in that coalition were divided in a 3:2:1.
        By maintaining constantant communication and consultation between the two parties they will be able to coordinate properly.They should also put in place dispute resolution mechanism just at the beginning of the coalition to settle conflicts among the two parties and prevent further problems that might arise in the future.This would secure a guaranteed prosperity of the government since disputes shall easily be manovered and in this they could use a honest broker within or outside the coalition framework.
        All the parties can take the responsibility to keep internal issues confidencial such when problems arise,they could remain strong without pressure from the public and this will keep the coalition strong therefore individual parties should not seek advantage from information leaks to the public.
        This way two parties are able to work together in a single government term

    2. This is a fantastic answer!
      In terms of the positive implications of a split Congress, you have identified that collaboration and compromise can allow for legislation that is closer to what the average citizen wants, rather than legislation that is the product of a single ideological perspective. You have also indicated that the transparency of democratic processes is enhanced by having an opposition party that is able to report corruption to internal inquiries, or to the press. In terms of negative implications, you have pointed out that while collaboration and compromise might be desirable, they are necessarily time-consuming, which can delay legislation or even stall it entirely due to infighting.
      Most perceptively, you write that working together requires a common framework of values, respect for the law, and a sense of personal duty or service; something that both parties can agree to. Do you think this is more likely when elected officials are local to a particular area, or if they have been brought in by the party?

  • What are the pros and cons of political division when laws are enacted and issued?
    I would like to say at the outset that the political division has no positives because opinions will be scattered between both parties. As for the negatives of the political division, it has a negative impact on all the people, and it will be between right and wrong between both parties because there is no unified opinion between them.
    How can people with different viewpoints work on it?
    They deal with each other, but the opinion between them is between right and wrong, and this will reflect negatively on their positives in any opinion. From my point of view, there is no better than the unified opinion that exists among politicians because if they are divided, they will take the right opinion and this will be reflected on the people positively.

    1. Can you find any other comments that suggest some of the benefits?

  • I think young people should be political because they lived the agonies of other people. Then later on , they might help to treat these injuries that citizens are suffering from when they become a president because they already lived between those people long time then they could know their basic needs . This is an advantage to young people being political . Those people who could change their country to be better . Then in your opinion, would those presidents feel the needs and pain of people that lived with or they would forget in case of being totally comfortable ?

    1. You raise some very good points. If young people have experienced a particular set of circumstances or problems growing up, they are well-placed to understand what other citizens in the country are experiencing, and what they want their government to use public money to achieve. However, once they become successful themselves, there is always the risk that they forget where they came from and no longer focus on the issues that they once thought were so important. Do you think this could be corrected by something like single-term limits, so that representatives can only be elected once? Also, why do you think young people are not more involved in politics, given that they often have important new perspectives?

      1. Electing representatives and presidents for once will be the solution for the corrupt, but we cannot ignore those who do their work in the best way and try to develop their country through their authority. Therefore, the election law, which stipulates that citizens have the right to punish the presidents by depriving them of power in the upcoming elections.

        Young people can be oppressed and their opinions are not heard by society due to being young and lack of experiences , and this is certainly wrong thinking and rebuilds the same corrupt foundations that destroyed society , that’s why some countries are unable to improve their capabilities . I suggest to start from the society and stop suppression and ridicule of these opinions because they could be very useful .

  • To be honest taking time to keep things in perspective allows us to Develop a better understanding of things. See a problem or challenge from different angles to develop a better knowledge. To understand the importance of something. By having a political split, we can avoid judgement, reduce stress on the law-making body, respond constructively not impulsively because when one side of the government is not prepared for something another side might be, develop deeper empathy, gain greater clarity on matters concerning the state, there will be increased learning opportunities and so much more.

    1. You have listed some really good positives here accurate_wombat. Do you think there are any negatives to a political split?

      1. Obviously yes there is, the decision-making process could be a lot faster, it could downright increase corruption. Also, it could lead to manipulation of the less powerful arms of government.

  • Where there are different opinions about a particular thing in this case politics , sit down and all decide that if you vote who ever wins the vote wins the case. Voting makes everything fair and they can also decide to take turns if one side wins all the time.

  • I personally think that there should be no political split because I see that in my country there are many conflicts and separation among people just because of their political leader . That's really hurt
    I think that there should be union as unity is strength if there is cooperation of course
    On the other hand we can't deny it's a type of advantages as
    Not everyone stands by one leader everyone has to their own opinion
    Political split i think give people the choice of choosing a leader who match to their mind
    But they should not exceed in such a way that they began to fight with each other just because of political split

    1. I think it depends on the country you come from, educated_ladder. In my country, and it appears it's the same in yours, people vote the person, not the ideas. I think that is wrong. But I also think it is good to support different ideas and parties and leaders because we don't all want the same things and we all judge things differently. It is important to know how to discuss our ideas and how to support our leaders so we see unity thru difference.

      1. That is a beautiful statement remarkable_peach - unity through difference. What steps would you take to encourage people to discuss their ideas and seek other perspectives?

        1. I think it all starts from the top. If we see politicians arguing instead of debating constructively, we'll do the same. I also think that education is very important and I know it doesn't stop when you finish university. So adults should be taught how to debate ideas. There should be organisations that should encourage and organise such sessions. I love the English saying "Let's agree to disagree". I think it is the perfect example of a civilised society.

      2. I agree with you it totally depends on our sense of understanding things and also all five fingers are not equal so it let us toward more ideas and sense to judge who is wrong or right
        Everyone has his point of view.
        We should respect it . I just want this because as i above says people began to fight just because someone has said something to their parties leader

    2. This is a good answer, which identifies that conflict is always a risk when different politicians and citizens disagree too much on what must be done in government. You also point out that unity based on cooperation is a significant strength for a country. What do you think creates unity in a country -- is it a set of written values or a constitution; a single culture, religion, or political system; or a unifying national identity (like multiculturalism in diverse countries like Canada or the U.K.)?
      This is one of the biggest philosophical (and practical) questions of politics: given that people from different perspectives or parts of the country will always disagree, how best do we allow them an outlet to express these differences in a peaceful and collaborative manner?

      1. I'm not sure about this. I think we have different types of systems and some work and others don't. In some countries unity is created by a set o common values but I also think that these values are imposed through examples and hard work and consistency. Our teacher from last year was from Liverpool. He said Liverpool used to be very dirty 30-40 years ago and now it isn't anymore. And that the prime minster herself was on TV picking up the trash. We have written rules and rules that are not written but that everybody respects. There are other states which work based on religion. Some of them do not really allow people from outside, but they seem to be united inside. But then I don't think there is one right answer. What I am convinced about though is that we need rules. We need rules so that there is no chaos.

  • I think that there is nothing positive, but the negatives are that the Democrats still control the Senate, and this is not permissible. There should be equality, and people with different points of view cannot work together to avoid conflicts. We must listen to the opinions of others carefully

    1. Although Democrats have the majority in the Senate, Republicans have the majority in the House of Representative.

  • If individuals are obliged to cast a ballot for each political race, they will undoubtedly need to benefit as much as possible from their votes.
    Along these lines, they would need to investigate more on every contender to guarantee they will have the option to settle on the correct decision. Thus, competitors would be compelled to be increasingly straightforward about their position on dubious issues.
    Moreover, better-educated voters will have the option to decide on ridiculous plans, guaranteeing more pleasant choices later on.

  • Of the negatives of political division
    The failure of one of the parties of division to compromise on the laws he enacted, even if they were wrong, and this leads to the eruption of peoples in protest against these unjust laws, so that lawlessness, instability, and safety will spread in the country
    One of the positives of the political division
    Opposition of one of the parties of the political division to the unjust laws of the other side and replacing them with laws that are in line with the requirements and needs of citizens

  • What are the positives of political division?
    I think that there are no positives to the political division in my country, an example of that is Hamas and Fatah. There is no unity or strength on both sides
    What are the downsides of political division?
    The weakness of our cause before the world, the disintegration of our people, the weakness of our economy, the difficulty of moving around and seeing our people cannot get out of their occupied country. We live in a situation in which I do not see any positives, but only negatives!

  • Political splits are very common in many countries, political splits are associated with pros and cons since some people may be satisfied with the laws they make and some may be unhappy but the pros associated with political splits when making laws are so many more than the cons laws made by the Congress are always diverse for example in the USA the laws made by the Congress always cater for the people who are represented by the Democrats and those represented by the Republicans but if there was only one party these laws could mainly cater for one side and the other could come as a suplus because each political party has its own ambitions that it promises it's voter so it will always have to first cater for them. The other advantage is that people will have a good image for the laws made not saying that they are made for one side but since many people of different political ideas are involved in making the laws so people tend to have a good image over the laws.
    Despite the strong pros there are cons in having political splits which are decision making seems to be slow because there is a big debate when these laws are being made because all parties will want to make the law favourable for the people they represent so the long debate while making laws in political splits makes the laws making process lengthy, it may even make the government encounter charges for example when the law is become complicated for the Congress the government can organize an election for the people to decide over the laws.
    People with different perspectives can be able to work together by having an intermediate who is able to listen to both sides and come to one conclusion that won't be dispised by both sides, people with different perspectives can also work together by setting up laws of conduct that both sides will have to follow and failure to one will be get a penalty.

  • I'm sorry but if I may ask, could someone explain the concept of a political split to me?

    1. It's the division of politicians within the state against each other, resulting in the emergence of two different political programs and It results in two branches , the executive and the political.

  • Why politics is divided when enacting and issuing laws ? All over , divider politics is a normal thing . While passing laws some sides stands with and other is not , this thing because of Inconsistency and it gives pros and cons .
    Usually different perspective can work with each other using dialogue between each other and from this way can get a one solution the two sides agree of it without making any problem and ray imposed .
    Finally my advice for all ladies and gentlemen at this program every thing u want to make it between u and your friends or in a political atmosphere to all people u should use the dialogue to get a nice solution satisfy everyone . And u agree with me or no ?