Does diversity in the branches of Government promote healthy checks and balances?  Is that important?
969564
The Founding Fathers built checks and balances into our system of government,but the constitution was based on the Bible. Diversity is a correlative, but not a cause.
708976
Absolutely not.  The powerful elite, who don't want change to occur in society, will always find new ways to try to divide people.  Whether it be based on skin color, sex, religion, national origin or sexual preference - "divide and conquer" is the oldest and most effective military strategy in the world.  As long as the disenfranchised can be kept at each others throats instead of working together for equality and fairness, we will continue to fail in our struggles.
747346
No.  And in fact this is not the case.  Members of legislature are voted in by the majority to represent ALL of their constituents.  Legislators do not have to be a member of a group to represent them.  And the ideals of minority groups cannot be a main consideration when they pose a real threat to the welfare of the greater population.  You can never have a member of every group in the legislature without having a very unwieldy government.  And without a member from every group, you will be missing someone's idea of an "important" group.  For instance, there probably are not many representatives from the population of one-eyed, albino, mudpuppy owners in congress right now, however, someone out there would find this to be an "important" group.  This does not mean that current legislaters are ignoring the welfare of this group.
1145692
Interesting question.\nMy opinion, not until the Senate, Congress, and state and local governments are nolonger ran by old, white men over 55.  If we take a good look at the picture of elected officials, the majority are white males, gray-haired, and over 55.  Look at the Bush Cabinet and what do you see?  It is not a very diverse cabinet that reflects the citizenry of this nation.  It is basically a White House for the "right" White Boy. \n\nSee former President Bill Clinton was not ther "right" White Boy because he was raised in dirt poor by a single Mother in back water Arkansas.  He was not suppose to become President.  That type of background and then to be President not one term but twice gave inspiration to those who are being raised in similar circumstances and conditions that they too can achieve the goals Clinton achieved.  Bill came into office under his own name and achievements.  He didn't have any relative holding political office for him to piggy bank on -- like W. Jr.\n\nI wish Congresswoman Maxine Waters would run, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.  I think she would give those boys a run for their money.  She has enjoyed serving the State of California for a couple of decades now.  She and Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC Congresswoman but no vote) are two tough customers, they give them white boys hell up here on Capital Hill.\n\nWhat will it take?  American registered to vote will have to take off their color glasses and see qualified, see the vision that a person of color running for President has.  It will take racism and prejudices to be placed on the very far back burner.  It will take parents that no longer teach their children racism and hatred of someone that is different from them.  It will take accepting the differences instead of trying to change those differences.  It will take trying to understand and then be understood.  In Covery's book The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People --the firs is "seek to understand then seek to be understood."\n\nUnfortunatel, many politicos turn it around, they want  you to understand where they are coming from and are not seeking to understand what it is the American people really consider top priority in this country.\n\nThat's some of what it will take.
5516
Absolutely NOT!!!  Your statement, 'Many parties tend to keep each other honest, and would represent all levels of society.' is a the most accurate assesment of what is TRUE DEMOCRACY!!!
285424
no. There is much diversity
1176385
OK, separation of powers is different from the checks and balances.\n\nThe separation of powers makes it clear that only the courts can interpret the constitution and whether it allows for or a law or executive order or not.  It makes it clear that only the president can issue executive orders (ie going to war etc.) and finally that only the legislature shall pass laws. ( I know the last two seem to cross over with the presidential veto and the fact that some laws are proposed by the white house... but it the separation is there.)\n\nThe checks and balances is that no one branch has supreme power and that each can and will be "checked" by the others.  The courts can overturn a law or executive order.  The president can veto a law and appoints the bench. And the legislature can overturn a veto and can amend the constitution to change the issue before the bench.\n\nI don't think either superseded either, they are both intertwined.  I do not think though that anyone should be monitoring the branches (except for the public).  If judges were to watch the pres, then the pres would have the right to watch judges and congress and congress would have the right to watch the judges etc.)\nWhat we need to do is hold our representative officials responsible for their actions and make sure that the best candidates are put forth on ballots.
994297
No. But most people who have any political interests fall somewhere along that spectrum.\n\nHowever, it is not the only spectrum. In fact, some models don't even consider it a single spectrum.\n\nFirst, you have the question of federal-vs-state. Conservatives originally believed in a small federal government and maximum states rights, while liberals wanted a strong centralized government. The Republican party has pretty much abandoned that conservative goal in the past decade, but it remains a significant aspect.\n\nYou also have the question of group-rights vs individual rights. This is where civil liberties versus community/national interests conflict. A conservative wants to afford protections for society, including strong national defense and homelands security. Liberals may value these things, but not at the expense of individual civil rights and liberties. That's another spectrum.\n\nThere are other spectrums, but you get the idea.  Democrats are big-government, individual rights. Republicans (nowadays) are big-government, group security. Federalists are small-government, group security. Libertarians are small-government, individual rights. Just to name a few.\n\nOf course, how fanatic you are about any of these goals is yet another wholly different scale. Moderates are those who are still willing to listen to other people, and haven't become trapped fanaticism.\n\nPersonally, I think the world needs more moderates, and less fanatics.
731778
Yes because in most democracies the security is typically less than in other forms of government.
696026
diversity is when you have a good mix of people from different backgrounds, and views.  \n\nthis can include things like race, gender, ethnicity, income but it is not limited to it.
528844
Well, they're really spoused to be on equal authority with the other 2 branches of government.  The Congress, Court and President are all checks and balances for eachother.  Theoretically they all three should have equal power.
216064
Balance of powers.  3 branches of government with checks and balances.  Look up the phrase "checks and balances."
845175
the US government is separated into three branches of goverment that theoretically ensure a balance of power.  These branches are the legistislature (house & senate), exectutive (president) and the judicial (supreme court).  \n\nEach branch is designed to work independent of one another, though at the same time work with each other to create laws, implement policy and to interpret the constitution through the judicial process. \n\nA governor is similar to the executive branch, but for a state. \n\nCongressman are those who are elected to the House of Representatives and Senators are those who are elected to the Senate.  Each state is represented by 2 senators for a total of 100.  The number of representatives from each state to the House is determined by its population.  The House and Senate were both created to ensure equal representation of all states, without favoring larger states.\n\nThe House of Representatives writes legistlation (laws).  But before they are made into laws, the Senate must vote on a 51-49 majority to pass it into law and the president must sign the law to become official. \n\nHope this helps!
5100
The biggest pro of having checks and balances is that no one group of people can decide how the country is going to be run. There are many interconnections between the various branches of government, but for the most part, the three branches keep the other two from going awry. For instance, if the president was the sole interperter of the constiution, there would be nothing to stop him from saying that detaining people indefinately without arraigning them is constitutional, etc. With the balance of power through having the judicial branch to interpret law and the constitution, there is another level of review, which preserves our personal liberties.\n\nA possible con of the system is that certain things can take much longer than they would otherwise, though I think that it is actually a positive that it makes people stop and think about things for a bit.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
1049727
Excellent question.  Please write our governent.  It seem we put such a high priority on academics yet forget the importance of balancing a check book.  Go figure?!?
904731
Not necessarily,  most people call it CULTURAL DIVERSITY.\n\n/doc