Conditional party government

Conditional party government is a form of government in which a party's responsibility ends only if there is widespread policy agreement among the majority party. For example, one of the results of conditional party is the universal acceptance that party leaders will back policy ideas where there was previously just partial agreement (Aldrich, John, and David 215). It is one of the most commonly employed explanations for political party influence in the United States Congress. However, certain conditions must be met for conditional party government to be effective.  According to Armingeon, Klaus, and Nathalie (261), one of the initial requirements is that the party must first assume a one-dimensional policy space which must also be in contrary to the initial intension of the developers of the conditional party government. For example, the scenario where party members are depicted whether to opt or not decide to empower their leaders to bring about legislation to the congress floor under certain restrictive laws or rules. Secondly, before the formation of the conditional party government, the members of the political party must be more than willing to support the centralizing authority within the hands of the leaders of the party, especially when the parties in the congress are more of internally homogeneous and relatively less ideologically approximated amongst themselves (LeLoup, Lance, and Steven 132). For example, the democrat part has always been favored by the support of party members to the centralizing authority. Thirdly, the policy preference members must then to the congress house the policy with which they may opt to reveal during voting as well as other policy making actions. For instance, the condition is in correspondence to the fact that many party members join politics initially due their own policy beliefs. However, they preference is allowed to contain certain healthy component of the party member's personal opinion.
Quiz 2
Generally, the Affordable Care Act is perhaps the greatest and latest overhaul of the health-care system of the United States as it currently providing coverage of approximately 94-percent of American population (Oliver 21). Even though the bill proved to be very controversial, but it finally passed into laws. The bill employed Presidential Leadership policy making pattern whereby the president had to finally sign the policy. Also, the laws makers in the congress house were allowed to take part in making the decision which results into making the bill into a complete law (Armingeon, Klaus, and Nathalie 215).
The Obamacare was signed into law in March, 2010. During that time, Nancy Pelosi of the Democrat majority in the House of Representative was unable to pass their version of the healthcare law. Since the senate all the bills on revenue had to originate from the house, the senate discovered a bill meeting all the conditions, that is, the military housing bill which they stripped off its original language and referred to as the Affordable Care Act or the Obamacare. The senate leader Harry Reid strikes a deal with Pelosi which saw the congress house passing the bill as a reconciliation act. Next, the House passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as well as their Reconciliation Act. At juncture, PPACA was set ready for President Obama to sign, though the senate still wanted to pass the Reconciliation Act from the house.
At last, the senate decided to make the bill to become a law, thus both house had to typically vote so as to pass the bill. Therefore, the simple majority of 218 of the 435house members voted and passed their version of the same bill. Subsequently, the two-third majority, 60 of the100 hundred senators voted to pass their version of the bill. Both the congressional houses hold a conference to generate one version of the bill on which both of the houses came to agree. A simple majority of the congress house then voted for a second time and passed the revised version of the agreed bill. The bill was then finally presented to the president who signed it into a law.
Quiz 3
The scenario requires quick action so as to be restored to normalcy. As much the presidential has sufficient support from the senate majority, but the decision on whether or not to respond to the Syrian state of war where the government applies chemical weapons against rebels should be urgent. Therefore, the appropriate policy-making pattern prompting President Clinton to use the military forces against Syria regime should be exclusively Presidential leadership pattern. The pattern of policy making acknowledges that as leader, the American president has at times to face several policy dilemmas imposed on them by the power division as provided in the ruling constitution as well as the large bureaucracy that has developed over a period of time (Aldrich, John, and David 162).
The presidential policy making pattern would resemble the decentralized policy making pattern whereby all the essential and urgent decision are left for the top leaders to preside over for a final verdict on the next course of action. For example, in the case of Persian Golf War of 1991, Clinton applied decentralized pattern of policy making when he only engaged a few leaders in the congressional house in his decision to release the army to intervene. In fact, without much consultation, President Clinton later on declared a s cease-fire, an action which depicted Clinton as maintaining control over policy without delegation of authority (Bianco, William, and Itai 152).
The only key different between the two policy-making patterns is that for the decentralized pattern, the outcome can be used in shaping the section of the policy that pertains the decision that is made (LeLoup, Lance, and Steven 217). For example, the political agenda within the policy is first considered whether the policy decision offer solution to the problem as well as offering opportunities that can be perceived and structured by other leaders within the political system.
Quiz 4
In this scenario, it is clear the ruling has little number in both the congressional houses and therefore, decision making or policy making remains at the hand of the congress. Therefore, in considering the situation of the case study given, Congressional leadership pattern of decision making would like to apply. Clinton is definitely likely to have to power at all to oppose the plan by the congress to build the massive wall in several Gulf Coast states intended to protect against the angrily rising sea level. The congress would also determine the fate of Clinton and her administration in defending the alleged scandal of secretly offering military support to the Islamic rebels fleeing into the country.
The congressional leadership pattern mostly dedicates itself to strengthening and protecting of the republican majority within house of the Representatives. This would subsequently deprive the president much of the power required for critical policy making. In this regard, the case study of Cuba Sanctions Legislation in 1996 would resemble the scenario following the fact the congress took part in most of the policy making and other decision making processes over the legislation sanctioning processes (Ripley, Randall, and Grace 281). For instance, in Cuba Sanctions Legislation in 1996, the congress enacted additional law that contributes to the strengthening of the embargo on Cuba, particularly the Cuba Liberty and the Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 which saw the embargo regulation codified. During that time, the congress overpowered Clinton and went further to enact other numerous law provisions that imposed sanction on Cuba which including restriction on foreign aid, trade as well as the support from international funding institutions. In this pattern, only key different is that the congress has all the power to engage in policy making but it must share its power with president. In fact, the constitution dictates that no any constitutional power that can be provided to the congress that the president does not share in the same way.
Quiz 5
Even, the partisan makeup of the congress and the presidency sometimes determines the policy making, but I do not that it determines it wholly. There are other factors. Every president and congress house normally seeks to influence or determine the process and the pattern of policy making. In upon the election, the congress partisan and president start by bringing to the office their hopes, objectives and goals for the public policy making (Epstein, David, and Sharyn 187). For a successful accomplishment of the policy, both the presidency and congress partisans must actively work together. Besides, the constitution and laws governing the congress and presidency participants in policy making are designed in such a way that only rarely would one of the institution dominates determination of the pattern of policy making. This therefore vividly implies that some other factors must be considered as influencing the whole process of determining the pattern.
Some of these factors include; economic, cultural, institutional, social, legal, as well as other affiliated political issues. For example, the government power in controlling some of the important economic resources required for the implementation of the policies as they are made. Some of the most influencing areas include the government budgetary priorities, corporate benefits and tax revenues. Institutional issues such as the administrative capabilities of the government in developing and implementing of some of the critical social programs and maintaining of the good institutional balance both in the local, states and federal jurisdiction. Cultural perception is another important determining factor. For example, the American perception of some of the key causes of common social problems, issue consequences and the societal obligation dictates the approach of making policies associated with cultural behaviors of citizens
Quiz 6.
In this scenario, congressional leadership will also apply since the president does not have the majority in the senate. Despite the fact that the Republican has won the election, but it lacks the power to exercise or take charge of policy making process (Ripley, Randall, and Grace 15). Moreover, as much as the president has the power to participate or initiate some policy making processes including veto legislation, the senate or the congress house remains one of the major constraint on how the presidents exercises the presidential power. In fact, when the president enters the office for the first time, he even set to share a brief honeymoon with the congress, a period during the congress members including the senate are expected to be more responsive to any presidential request in light recent victory of the president. However, in this scenario whereby the two political parties remain to be bitterly divided along the political ideologies as well as on civil right issues, the senate or congress majority will carry the day in most of the decisions or policy making processes (Epstein, David, and Sharyn 211).
The president having lost the senate, it there expected to find the congress to be extremely unresponsive to most of his request regarding important aspects of policy making. For example, in the case of the Democrats proposing the bill that would demand subjection of the act of police killing of the unarmed people to the independent federal investigation, it is obvious that the bill will definitely be passed into law owing the huge number of the Democrats in the senate congressional house. The pattern is most likely to resemble the combat pattern of policy making because the senate directly conquers and influence the entire process of making policy without seeking the power of the president. However, the only difference is that for this type of congressional leadership pattern, the senate must seek the final go head from the presidents in order to complete the process of policy making.
Quiz 7
The action by Senator Packwood as the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee in calling for "behind closed door" meeting to discuss and deliver on the tax reform act with the committee members was considered as much successful (Ripley, Randall, and Grace 216). This can be largely attributed to the fact that going secret by the committee offered the committee maximum time with minimum disturbances by the external power or influence from either the presidency or congress partisans who would have had diverting opinions about the bill. In addition, holding the meeting "behind the door" also ensured the Senator to acquire the deeply thought ideas from the committee members without interference from other members of the Senate who would otherwise impose their own ideologies to the involved committee members so as to influence the outcome of the decision made by the committee (Aldrich, John, and David 41). Besides, the committee also realized the full capacity of the power that was given to realize the accomplishment of their assigned responsibilities as an independent committee. Also, the all progress on the tax reform was able to become successful because the committee had all the time and the resources required to address the conflicting issues surrounding the bill without facing rejection and constraints that would have been caused by the public and other interested civil servants.
Quiz 8
The Senate congressional house is generally thought of as more prominent body in regards to foreign policy making (Dror 17). Nonetheless, the constitution requires that no single foreign constitutional amendment should be created to deny the state its equivalent suffrage in the Senate Congressional House without the consent of the state. Even as a form of check on the popularity of the two congressional houses, the Senate house has several distinct powers especially in relation to several foreign policy making. Additionally, the house as body has all the power to initiate foreign spending bills as well as impeaching the foreign officials. The house also has the authority to choose or elect the president within an Electoral College deadlock, an action which plays a key role in the formation and stabilization of the foreign policies (Oliver 216). The senate congressional house also has the longest term lengths and relatively many districts to represent. The house is also more hierarchically organized with quite a number of foreign policy making roles foreign affairs and legislations. The foreign policy procedures of the senate congressional house not only depend on the rules, but also depend on the varieties of the foreign customs, precedents as well as traditions.
Quiz 9
Both the Presidential and the Congressional powers appear to be rivals to each other, especially in policy making aspect where they are not harmonized. Besides, the power and authorities to formulate different policies including the foreign policies have been equally divided between the presidency and the congress house normally with the main goal and object as achieving consistency, coherency and continuity in making of different policies including the foreign policies. Therefore, in signing the treaty, great of examining corporation would be realized between the two arms of power and authority (Dror 51). Besides, both the presidential and congress have relatively equal opportunities to formulate and change features policies, that are required in approaching the complete process of executing and implementing of the policies as formulated. Again, the process of formulating the U.S foreign policies is a bit more complex and difficult, and signing treaty of corporation between the presidential and the congressional arms would be a great way of bringing the supports of the two separate and independent branches to collectively work together so as to make effective and strong local and foreign policies.



Work Cited
Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. The logic of conditional party government: Revisiting the electoral connection. PIPC, 2000.
Armingeon, Klaus, and Nathalie Giger. "Conditional punishment: A comparative analysis of the electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment in OECD nations, 1980-2003." West European Politics 31.3 (2008): 558-580.
Bianco, William T., and Itai Sened. "Uncovering evidence of conditional party government: Reassessing majority party influence in congress and state legislatures." American Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): 361-371.
Dror, Yehezkel. Public policy making reexamined. Transaction Publishers, 1983.
Epstein, David, and Sharyn O'halloran. Delegating powers: A transaction cost politics approach to policy making under separate powers. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
LeLoup, Lance T., and Steven A. Shull. The president and Congress: Collaboration and combat in national policymaking. Allyn & Bacon, 1999.
Oliver, Willard M. "Executive orders: Symbolic politics, criminal justice policy, and the American presidency." American Journal of Criminal Justice 26.1 (2001): 1-21.
Ripley, Randall B., and Grace A. Franklin. Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy. Dorsey Press, 1984.