Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?Why...

The use of multiple foreign keys on same column in SQL Server

Why are 150k or 200k jobs considered good when there are 300k+ births a month?

Is there a minimum number of transactions in a block?

Infinite past with a beginning?

How can the DM most effectively choose 1 out of an odd number of players to be targeted by an attack or effect?

Extreme, but not acceptable situation and I can't start the work tomorrow morning

Draw simple lines in Inkscape

Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?

Is it possible to make sharp wind that can cut stuff from afar?

Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?

How can I fix this gap between bookcases I made?

Email Account under attack (really) - anything I can do?

How to make payment on the internet without leaving a money trail?

Can I interfere when another PC is about to be attacked?

Copenhagen passport control - US citizen

"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it

The magic money tree problem

whey we use polarized capacitor?

Pronouncing Dictionary.com's W.O.D "vade mecum" in English

Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)

Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)

Banach space and Hilbert space topology



Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?


Why don't politicians decide to pass laws that make themselves really rich?Why would a liberal be nervous under a conservative majority House/Senate/President, when a Senate vote for cloture requires 60 votes?Are there any procedural advantages to indefinitely delaying or canceling a vote on a bill?Does the US Senate still have the option to pass some form of healthcare bill through the budget reconciliation, during this fiscal year?If one party controls the house and 2/3 of the senate, what's to stop them taking the presidency?Trump's recent siding with the democrats on 3 months debt extension - trying to understand a few thingsHow can a Senate bill bypass committee and directly go to a vote?What power, if any, does the SCOTUS Chief Justice have to hamper or reject an appointment they dislike?Why is the Senate leader allowed to decide which bills to vote on?Can the Supreme Court overturn an impeachment?













4















I was talking to a friend some time ago about American politics, political parties, etc. During this conversation, I thought of something:




  • If a single party controlled both the house and senate, they could always pass a joint resolution

  • If the president also belonged to said party, the bills would never get vetoed

  • The president couldn't be impeached, since the house and senate are under control of the party

  • Because of this, the party could make the supreme court judges "disappear" and appoint new ones. Despite suspicions, he/she couldn't be impeached

  • The party can then pass any laws they like, pardon anyone they want (meaning they can do anything illegal and get away with it), and even pass constitutional amendments to extend their reign without the supreme court stopping them.


I'm absolutely certain I've overlooked something that would make this impossible, and people have said so, yet never been able to find a reason. Is this possible, and if not, what stops it from happening?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 3





    Making a constitutional amendment also also requires the agreement of three quarters of the states. Unless enough states' legislatures (or possibly state ratifying conventions) are also of the same party (or in agreement with it), changing the constitution could be tough.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    This question has attracted two downvotes and a vote to close, apparently without any explanatory comment. Yet the question goes to the heart of the US constitution and would be a perfect opportunity to explain how and why -- and to what extent -- the constitution addresses this issue. The question deserves an answer and the Redwolf Programs deserves to know what people's reservations about the question are, to have an opportunity to address them.

    – phoog
    2 hours ago











  • @SteveMelnikoff Might want to post an answer, that's a pretty good point.

    – Redwolf Programs
    58 mins ago
















4















I was talking to a friend some time ago about American politics, political parties, etc. During this conversation, I thought of something:




  • If a single party controlled both the house and senate, they could always pass a joint resolution

  • If the president also belonged to said party, the bills would never get vetoed

  • The president couldn't be impeached, since the house and senate are under control of the party

  • Because of this, the party could make the supreme court judges "disappear" and appoint new ones. Despite suspicions, he/she couldn't be impeached

  • The party can then pass any laws they like, pardon anyone they want (meaning they can do anything illegal and get away with it), and even pass constitutional amendments to extend their reign without the supreme court stopping them.


I'm absolutely certain I've overlooked something that would make this impossible, and people have said so, yet never been able to find a reason. Is this possible, and if not, what stops it from happening?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 3





    Making a constitutional amendment also also requires the agreement of three quarters of the states. Unless enough states' legislatures (or possibly state ratifying conventions) are also of the same party (or in agreement with it), changing the constitution could be tough.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    This question has attracted two downvotes and a vote to close, apparently without any explanatory comment. Yet the question goes to the heart of the US constitution and would be a perfect opportunity to explain how and why -- and to what extent -- the constitution addresses this issue. The question deserves an answer and the Redwolf Programs deserves to know what people's reservations about the question are, to have an opportunity to address them.

    – phoog
    2 hours ago











  • @SteveMelnikoff Might want to post an answer, that's a pretty good point.

    – Redwolf Programs
    58 mins ago














4












4








4








I was talking to a friend some time ago about American politics, political parties, etc. During this conversation, I thought of something:




  • If a single party controlled both the house and senate, they could always pass a joint resolution

  • If the president also belonged to said party, the bills would never get vetoed

  • The president couldn't be impeached, since the house and senate are under control of the party

  • Because of this, the party could make the supreme court judges "disappear" and appoint new ones. Despite suspicions, he/she couldn't be impeached

  • The party can then pass any laws they like, pardon anyone they want (meaning they can do anything illegal and get away with it), and even pass constitutional amendments to extend their reign without the supreme court stopping them.


I'm absolutely certain I've overlooked something that would make this impossible, and people have said so, yet never been able to find a reason. Is this possible, and if not, what stops it from happening?










share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I was talking to a friend some time ago about American politics, political parties, etc. During this conversation, I thought of something:




  • If a single party controlled both the house and senate, they could always pass a joint resolution

  • If the president also belonged to said party, the bills would never get vetoed

  • The president couldn't be impeached, since the house and senate are under control of the party

  • Because of this, the party could make the supreme court judges "disappear" and appoint new ones. Despite suspicions, he/she couldn't be impeached

  • The party can then pass any laws they like, pardon anyone they want (meaning they can do anything illegal and get away with it), and even pass constitutional amendments to extend their reign without the supreme court stopping them.


I'm absolutely certain I've overlooked something that would make this impossible, and people have said so, yet never been able to find a reason. Is this possible, and if not, what stops it from happening?







united-states parties






share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 4 hours ago









Redwolf ProgramsRedwolf Programs

1273




1273




New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 3





    Making a constitutional amendment also also requires the agreement of three quarters of the states. Unless enough states' legislatures (or possibly state ratifying conventions) are also of the same party (or in agreement with it), changing the constitution could be tough.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    This question has attracted two downvotes and a vote to close, apparently without any explanatory comment. Yet the question goes to the heart of the US constitution and would be a perfect opportunity to explain how and why -- and to what extent -- the constitution addresses this issue. The question deserves an answer and the Redwolf Programs deserves to know what people's reservations about the question are, to have an opportunity to address them.

    – phoog
    2 hours ago











  • @SteveMelnikoff Might want to post an answer, that's a pretty good point.

    – Redwolf Programs
    58 mins ago














  • 3





    Making a constitutional amendment also also requires the agreement of three quarters of the states. Unless enough states' legislatures (or possibly state ratifying conventions) are also of the same party (or in agreement with it), changing the constitution could be tough.

    – Steve Melnikoff
    3 hours ago






  • 2





    This question has attracted two downvotes and a vote to close, apparently without any explanatory comment. Yet the question goes to the heart of the US constitution and would be a perfect opportunity to explain how and why -- and to what extent -- the constitution addresses this issue. The question deserves an answer and the Redwolf Programs deserves to know what people's reservations about the question are, to have an opportunity to address them.

    – phoog
    2 hours ago











  • @SteveMelnikoff Might want to post an answer, that's a pretty good point.

    – Redwolf Programs
    58 mins ago








3




3





Making a constitutional amendment also also requires the agreement of three quarters of the states. Unless enough states' legislatures (or possibly state ratifying conventions) are also of the same party (or in agreement with it), changing the constitution could be tough.

– Steve Melnikoff
3 hours ago





Making a constitutional amendment also also requires the agreement of three quarters of the states. Unless enough states' legislatures (or possibly state ratifying conventions) are also of the same party (or in agreement with it), changing the constitution could be tough.

– Steve Melnikoff
3 hours ago




2




2





This question has attracted two downvotes and a vote to close, apparently without any explanatory comment. Yet the question goes to the heart of the US constitution and would be a perfect opportunity to explain how and why -- and to what extent -- the constitution addresses this issue. The question deserves an answer and the Redwolf Programs deserves to know what people's reservations about the question are, to have an opportunity to address them.

– phoog
2 hours ago





This question has attracted two downvotes and a vote to close, apparently without any explanatory comment. Yet the question goes to the heart of the US constitution and would be a perfect opportunity to explain how and why -- and to what extent -- the constitution addresses this issue. The question deserves an answer and the Redwolf Programs deserves to know what people's reservations about the question are, to have an opportunity to address them.

– phoog
2 hours ago













@SteveMelnikoff Might want to post an answer, that's a pretty good point.

– Redwolf Programs
58 mins ago





@SteveMelnikoff Might want to post an answer, that's a pretty good point.

– Redwolf Programs
58 mins ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2














A couple things are worth considering in this scenario.



First of all, this scenario assumes that some party can manage to convince an overwhelming majority of the populace, and the states, to vote for it. That's quite a tall order already. Granted, extremely one-sided senatorial elections have happened. For example, in the 1936 elections, Democrats controlled 74 seats, and Republicans controlled 17. The House of Representative elections was similarly one-sided. That's more than the needed 2/3 majority to approve a constitutional amendment. That being said, those were very different times. The election was at the same time as the presidential elections, and essentially became an election about the New Deal. In the context of the Great Depression, it's not too surprising that the vote was this lopsided. Some pretty cataclysmic events would have to occur to get such one-sided elections again. For context, in the 2016 Senate elections, Democrats won 46 seats, and Republicans won 52. In the House elections, Republicans won 241 seats, and Democrats won 194. The point is, the votes are extremely close right now. We are no where near the 2/3 mark.



Second, 3/4 of the states need to approve Constitutional amendments (such as one needed to change the size of the Supreme Court). That's a lot of states. For either party, there's a dedicated core of states that will never "fall" to the opposing party. Here's a map of "Red" and "Blue" states:



Red and blue states



You'll notice that while Republicans control many rural states, it's still fairly evenly matched. As I mentioned previously, it would take some pretty cataclysmic events to cause a change drastic enough to give one side a 3/4 majority. A sufficiently serious natural disaster or terrorist attack might do it, but I'm fairly doubtful that even in that case you'd see large enough changes.



Third, you have to consider what population you're talking about. Because of a combination of factors, Americans have had a somewhat unique fixation on freedom, and a particularly potent loathing towards surrendering rights to the government for any reason. There are many who claim that even current government policies are tyrannical, and that's without any party attempting to become tyrants. While it's certainly true that private citizens aren't a great army, there's a lot of them. America has a very high amount of weapons per capita, and a large portion of the population own weapons. Granted, many would not have the initiative to rise up against a government. I suspect, however, that enough would to cause serious damage. After all, the war in Vietnam should be a lesson in how effective untrained civilians can be.



To sum things up, I think that it's essentially impossible for this to happen politically. If it indeed does occur, I expect that this regime would be an extremely unstable one. They would have to deal with incessant civilian insurgencies, and would have to find a way to govern a population which is armed and ideologically opposed to its rulers. On the other hand, "it couldn't happen here" were the last words of very many people throughout history. It's certainly an interesting topic to think about.






share|improve this answer



















  • 1





    I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

    – Bobson
    1 hour ago













  • You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

    – IllusiveBrian
    48 mins ago













  • Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

    – IllusiveBrian
    43 mins ago











  • When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

    – Jouni Sirén
    31 mins ago



















1














Institutions and constitutional arrangements are important as they provide a buffer against temporary excesses, but the ultimate check is civil society, really. Otherwise look at Hungary, Turkey, etc. No amount of paper institutions is going to prevent a slide into something like that. Unless enough people say no.



There have been a lot of papers on instability in democracies and (temporary) reverts to authoritarianism. In general, a long democratic history is good predictor of non-reversals. Here's one such paper:




I present a new empirical approach to the study of democratic consolidation. I distinguish between democracies that survive because
they are consolidated and those democracies that are not consolidated but survive because of
some favorable circumstances. As a result, I can identify the determinants of two related yet
distinct processes: the likelihood that a democracy consolidates, and the timing of
authoritarian reversals in democracies that are not consolidated. I find that the level of
economic development, type of democratic executive, and type of authoritarian past determine
whether a democracy consolidates, but have no effect on the timing of reversals in democracies
that are not consolidated. That risk is only associated with economic recessions.




As an aside: I think the US Supreme Court can still be padded, no need to kill anyone.






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40334%2fcould-a-us-political-party-gain-complete-control-over-the-government-by-removing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    A couple things are worth considering in this scenario.



    First of all, this scenario assumes that some party can manage to convince an overwhelming majority of the populace, and the states, to vote for it. That's quite a tall order already. Granted, extremely one-sided senatorial elections have happened. For example, in the 1936 elections, Democrats controlled 74 seats, and Republicans controlled 17. The House of Representative elections was similarly one-sided. That's more than the needed 2/3 majority to approve a constitutional amendment. That being said, those were very different times. The election was at the same time as the presidential elections, and essentially became an election about the New Deal. In the context of the Great Depression, it's not too surprising that the vote was this lopsided. Some pretty cataclysmic events would have to occur to get such one-sided elections again. For context, in the 2016 Senate elections, Democrats won 46 seats, and Republicans won 52. In the House elections, Republicans won 241 seats, and Democrats won 194. The point is, the votes are extremely close right now. We are no where near the 2/3 mark.



    Second, 3/4 of the states need to approve Constitutional amendments (such as one needed to change the size of the Supreme Court). That's a lot of states. For either party, there's a dedicated core of states that will never "fall" to the opposing party. Here's a map of "Red" and "Blue" states:



    Red and blue states



    You'll notice that while Republicans control many rural states, it's still fairly evenly matched. As I mentioned previously, it would take some pretty cataclysmic events to cause a change drastic enough to give one side a 3/4 majority. A sufficiently serious natural disaster or terrorist attack might do it, but I'm fairly doubtful that even in that case you'd see large enough changes.



    Third, you have to consider what population you're talking about. Because of a combination of factors, Americans have had a somewhat unique fixation on freedom, and a particularly potent loathing towards surrendering rights to the government for any reason. There are many who claim that even current government policies are tyrannical, and that's without any party attempting to become tyrants. While it's certainly true that private citizens aren't a great army, there's a lot of them. America has a very high amount of weapons per capita, and a large portion of the population own weapons. Granted, many would not have the initiative to rise up against a government. I suspect, however, that enough would to cause serious damage. After all, the war in Vietnam should be a lesson in how effective untrained civilians can be.



    To sum things up, I think that it's essentially impossible for this to happen politically. If it indeed does occur, I expect that this regime would be an extremely unstable one. They would have to deal with incessant civilian insurgencies, and would have to find a way to govern a population which is armed and ideologically opposed to its rulers. On the other hand, "it couldn't happen here" were the last words of very many people throughout history. It's certainly an interesting topic to think about.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

      – Bobson
      1 hour ago













    • You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

      – IllusiveBrian
      48 mins ago













    • Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

      – IllusiveBrian
      43 mins ago











    • When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

      – Jouni Sirén
      31 mins ago
















    2














    A couple things are worth considering in this scenario.



    First of all, this scenario assumes that some party can manage to convince an overwhelming majority of the populace, and the states, to vote for it. That's quite a tall order already. Granted, extremely one-sided senatorial elections have happened. For example, in the 1936 elections, Democrats controlled 74 seats, and Republicans controlled 17. The House of Representative elections was similarly one-sided. That's more than the needed 2/3 majority to approve a constitutional amendment. That being said, those were very different times. The election was at the same time as the presidential elections, and essentially became an election about the New Deal. In the context of the Great Depression, it's not too surprising that the vote was this lopsided. Some pretty cataclysmic events would have to occur to get such one-sided elections again. For context, in the 2016 Senate elections, Democrats won 46 seats, and Republicans won 52. In the House elections, Republicans won 241 seats, and Democrats won 194. The point is, the votes are extremely close right now. We are no where near the 2/3 mark.



    Second, 3/4 of the states need to approve Constitutional amendments (such as one needed to change the size of the Supreme Court). That's a lot of states. For either party, there's a dedicated core of states that will never "fall" to the opposing party. Here's a map of "Red" and "Blue" states:



    Red and blue states



    You'll notice that while Republicans control many rural states, it's still fairly evenly matched. As I mentioned previously, it would take some pretty cataclysmic events to cause a change drastic enough to give one side a 3/4 majority. A sufficiently serious natural disaster or terrorist attack might do it, but I'm fairly doubtful that even in that case you'd see large enough changes.



    Third, you have to consider what population you're talking about. Because of a combination of factors, Americans have had a somewhat unique fixation on freedom, and a particularly potent loathing towards surrendering rights to the government for any reason. There are many who claim that even current government policies are tyrannical, and that's without any party attempting to become tyrants. While it's certainly true that private citizens aren't a great army, there's a lot of them. America has a very high amount of weapons per capita, and a large portion of the population own weapons. Granted, many would not have the initiative to rise up against a government. I suspect, however, that enough would to cause serious damage. After all, the war in Vietnam should be a lesson in how effective untrained civilians can be.



    To sum things up, I think that it's essentially impossible for this to happen politically. If it indeed does occur, I expect that this regime would be an extremely unstable one. They would have to deal with incessant civilian insurgencies, and would have to find a way to govern a population which is armed and ideologically opposed to its rulers. On the other hand, "it couldn't happen here" were the last words of very many people throughout history. It's certainly an interesting topic to think about.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1





      I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

      – Bobson
      1 hour ago













    • You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

      – IllusiveBrian
      48 mins ago













    • Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

      – IllusiveBrian
      43 mins ago











    • When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

      – Jouni Sirén
      31 mins ago














    2












    2








    2







    A couple things are worth considering in this scenario.



    First of all, this scenario assumes that some party can manage to convince an overwhelming majority of the populace, and the states, to vote for it. That's quite a tall order already. Granted, extremely one-sided senatorial elections have happened. For example, in the 1936 elections, Democrats controlled 74 seats, and Republicans controlled 17. The House of Representative elections was similarly one-sided. That's more than the needed 2/3 majority to approve a constitutional amendment. That being said, those were very different times. The election was at the same time as the presidential elections, and essentially became an election about the New Deal. In the context of the Great Depression, it's not too surprising that the vote was this lopsided. Some pretty cataclysmic events would have to occur to get such one-sided elections again. For context, in the 2016 Senate elections, Democrats won 46 seats, and Republicans won 52. In the House elections, Republicans won 241 seats, and Democrats won 194. The point is, the votes are extremely close right now. We are no where near the 2/3 mark.



    Second, 3/4 of the states need to approve Constitutional amendments (such as one needed to change the size of the Supreme Court). That's a lot of states. For either party, there's a dedicated core of states that will never "fall" to the opposing party. Here's a map of "Red" and "Blue" states:



    Red and blue states



    You'll notice that while Republicans control many rural states, it's still fairly evenly matched. As I mentioned previously, it would take some pretty cataclysmic events to cause a change drastic enough to give one side a 3/4 majority. A sufficiently serious natural disaster or terrorist attack might do it, but I'm fairly doubtful that even in that case you'd see large enough changes.



    Third, you have to consider what population you're talking about. Because of a combination of factors, Americans have had a somewhat unique fixation on freedom, and a particularly potent loathing towards surrendering rights to the government for any reason. There are many who claim that even current government policies are tyrannical, and that's without any party attempting to become tyrants. While it's certainly true that private citizens aren't a great army, there's a lot of them. America has a very high amount of weapons per capita, and a large portion of the population own weapons. Granted, many would not have the initiative to rise up against a government. I suspect, however, that enough would to cause serious damage. After all, the war in Vietnam should be a lesson in how effective untrained civilians can be.



    To sum things up, I think that it's essentially impossible for this to happen politically. If it indeed does occur, I expect that this regime would be an extremely unstable one. They would have to deal with incessant civilian insurgencies, and would have to find a way to govern a population which is armed and ideologically opposed to its rulers. On the other hand, "it couldn't happen here" were the last words of very many people throughout history. It's certainly an interesting topic to think about.






    share|improve this answer













    A couple things are worth considering in this scenario.



    First of all, this scenario assumes that some party can manage to convince an overwhelming majority of the populace, and the states, to vote for it. That's quite a tall order already. Granted, extremely one-sided senatorial elections have happened. For example, in the 1936 elections, Democrats controlled 74 seats, and Republicans controlled 17. The House of Representative elections was similarly one-sided. That's more than the needed 2/3 majority to approve a constitutional amendment. That being said, those were very different times. The election was at the same time as the presidential elections, and essentially became an election about the New Deal. In the context of the Great Depression, it's not too surprising that the vote was this lopsided. Some pretty cataclysmic events would have to occur to get such one-sided elections again. For context, in the 2016 Senate elections, Democrats won 46 seats, and Republicans won 52. In the House elections, Republicans won 241 seats, and Democrats won 194. The point is, the votes are extremely close right now. We are no where near the 2/3 mark.



    Second, 3/4 of the states need to approve Constitutional amendments (such as one needed to change the size of the Supreme Court). That's a lot of states. For either party, there's a dedicated core of states that will never "fall" to the opposing party. Here's a map of "Red" and "Blue" states:



    Red and blue states



    You'll notice that while Republicans control many rural states, it's still fairly evenly matched. As I mentioned previously, it would take some pretty cataclysmic events to cause a change drastic enough to give one side a 3/4 majority. A sufficiently serious natural disaster or terrorist attack might do it, but I'm fairly doubtful that even in that case you'd see large enough changes.



    Third, you have to consider what population you're talking about. Because of a combination of factors, Americans have had a somewhat unique fixation on freedom, and a particularly potent loathing towards surrendering rights to the government for any reason. There are many who claim that even current government policies are tyrannical, and that's without any party attempting to become tyrants. While it's certainly true that private citizens aren't a great army, there's a lot of them. America has a very high amount of weapons per capita, and a large portion of the population own weapons. Granted, many would not have the initiative to rise up against a government. I suspect, however, that enough would to cause serious damage. After all, the war in Vietnam should be a lesson in how effective untrained civilians can be.



    To sum things up, I think that it's essentially impossible for this to happen politically. If it indeed does occur, I expect that this regime would be an extremely unstable one. They would have to deal with incessant civilian insurgencies, and would have to find a way to govern a population which is armed and ideologically opposed to its rulers. On the other hand, "it couldn't happen here" were the last words of very many people throughout history. It's certainly an interesting topic to think about.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    DevilApple227DevilApple227

    1534




    1534








    • 1





      I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

      – Bobson
      1 hour ago













    • You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

      – IllusiveBrian
      48 mins ago













    • Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

      – IllusiveBrian
      43 mins ago











    • When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

      – Jouni Sirén
      31 mins ago














    • 1





      I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

      – Bobson
      1 hour ago













    • You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

      – IllusiveBrian
      48 mins ago













    • Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

      – IllusiveBrian
      43 mins ago











    • When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

      – Jouni Sirén
      31 mins ago








    1




    1





    I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

    – Bobson
    1 hour ago







    I strongly object to the "will never fall" line. Parties evolve over time, and their coalitions change with that. There were extremely lopsided results in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and the 1976 map looks nothing like the modern one. Democrats won most of the South (including Texas) and Republicans won the entire west of the country (including California). Sure, that was 40 years ago, but what do you expect the map to look like in another 40 years? That said, I think the third part of this answer is quite good.

    – Bobson
    1 hour ago















    You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

    – IllusiveBrian
    48 mins ago







    You say "untrained civilians," but the US has a lot of combat veterans and a significant percentage privately own weapons. If even a small percentage of them decide to become insurgents they'll train all the other insurgents. It may not be to the same extent that the regular army gets, but they have the advantage of only needing to be trained to defend their home turf.

    – IllusiveBrian
    48 mins ago















    Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

    – IllusiveBrian
    43 mins ago





    Also, I think there's one more thing the answer leaves out - if the government were plainly corrupt and attempted to use the military and intelligence agencies to exert their rule, they would have mass desertions on their hands, and even worse a lot of insider threats.

    – IllusiveBrian
    43 mins ago













    When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

    – Jouni Sirén
    31 mins ago





    When republican institutions are subverted, the majority of the population usually supports it or at least silently accepts it. A large number of privately owned guns would simply mean more guns to use against those who disagree.

    – Jouni Sirén
    31 mins ago











    1














    Institutions and constitutional arrangements are important as they provide a buffer against temporary excesses, but the ultimate check is civil society, really. Otherwise look at Hungary, Turkey, etc. No amount of paper institutions is going to prevent a slide into something like that. Unless enough people say no.



    There have been a lot of papers on instability in democracies and (temporary) reverts to authoritarianism. In general, a long democratic history is good predictor of non-reversals. Here's one such paper:




    I present a new empirical approach to the study of democratic consolidation. I distinguish between democracies that survive because
    they are consolidated and those democracies that are not consolidated but survive because of
    some favorable circumstances. As a result, I can identify the determinants of two related yet
    distinct processes: the likelihood that a democracy consolidates, and the timing of
    authoritarian reversals in democracies that are not consolidated. I find that the level of
    economic development, type of democratic executive, and type of authoritarian past determine
    whether a democracy consolidates, but have no effect on the timing of reversals in democracies
    that are not consolidated. That risk is only associated with economic recessions.




    As an aside: I think the US Supreme Court can still be padded, no need to kill anyone.






    share|improve this answer




























      1














      Institutions and constitutional arrangements are important as they provide a buffer against temporary excesses, but the ultimate check is civil society, really. Otherwise look at Hungary, Turkey, etc. No amount of paper institutions is going to prevent a slide into something like that. Unless enough people say no.



      There have been a lot of papers on instability in democracies and (temporary) reverts to authoritarianism. In general, a long democratic history is good predictor of non-reversals. Here's one such paper:




      I present a new empirical approach to the study of democratic consolidation. I distinguish between democracies that survive because
      they are consolidated and those democracies that are not consolidated but survive because of
      some favorable circumstances. As a result, I can identify the determinants of two related yet
      distinct processes: the likelihood that a democracy consolidates, and the timing of
      authoritarian reversals in democracies that are not consolidated. I find that the level of
      economic development, type of democratic executive, and type of authoritarian past determine
      whether a democracy consolidates, but have no effect on the timing of reversals in democracies
      that are not consolidated. That risk is only associated with economic recessions.




      As an aside: I think the US Supreme Court can still be padded, no need to kill anyone.






      share|improve this answer


























        1












        1








        1







        Institutions and constitutional arrangements are important as they provide a buffer against temporary excesses, but the ultimate check is civil society, really. Otherwise look at Hungary, Turkey, etc. No amount of paper institutions is going to prevent a slide into something like that. Unless enough people say no.



        There have been a lot of papers on instability in democracies and (temporary) reverts to authoritarianism. In general, a long democratic history is good predictor of non-reversals. Here's one such paper:




        I present a new empirical approach to the study of democratic consolidation. I distinguish between democracies that survive because
        they are consolidated and those democracies that are not consolidated but survive because of
        some favorable circumstances. As a result, I can identify the determinants of two related yet
        distinct processes: the likelihood that a democracy consolidates, and the timing of
        authoritarian reversals in democracies that are not consolidated. I find that the level of
        economic development, type of democratic executive, and type of authoritarian past determine
        whether a democracy consolidates, but have no effect on the timing of reversals in democracies
        that are not consolidated. That risk is only associated with economic recessions.




        As an aside: I think the US Supreme Court can still be padded, no need to kill anyone.






        share|improve this answer













        Institutions and constitutional arrangements are important as they provide a buffer against temporary excesses, but the ultimate check is civil society, really. Otherwise look at Hungary, Turkey, etc. No amount of paper institutions is going to prevent a slide into something like that. Unless enough people say no.



        There have been a lot of papers on instability in democracies and (temporary) reverts to authoritarianism. In general, a long democratic history is good predictor of non-reversals. Here's one such paper:




        I present a new empirical approach to the study of democratic consolidation. I distinguish between democracies that survive because
        they are consolidated and those democracies that are not consolidated but survive because of
        some favorable circumstances. As a result, I can identify the determinants of two related yet
        distinct processes: the likelihood that a democracy consolidates, and the timing of
        authoritarian reversals in democracies that are not consolidated. I find that the level of
        economic development, type of democratic executive, and type of authoritarian past determine
        whether a democracy consolidates, but have no effect on the timing of reversals in democracies
        that are not consolidated. That risk is only associated with economic recessions.




        As an aside: I think the US Supreme Court can still be padded, no need to kill anyone.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        FizzFizz

        13.9k23288




        13.9k23288






















            Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40334%2fcould-a-us-political-party-gain-complete-control-over-the-government-by-removing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            “%fieldName is a required field.”, in Magento2 REST API Call for GET Method Type The Next...

            How to change City field to a dropdown in Checkout step Magento 2Magento 2 : How to change UI field(s)...

            變成蝙蝠會怎樣? 參考資料 外部連結 导航菜单Thomas Nagel, "What is it like to be a...