Talk:Divided government in the United States

Effects of Divided Government
David Mayhew's article, 'Divided We Govern,' as well as Sarah Binder's Article, 'The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock,' both refute the notion that divided governments have a difficult time producing legislation. Mayhew's article shows that legislative productivity (absolute # of important and landmark bills passed) remains unchanged through periods of divided vs periods of unified government. Binder's article shows that there are many factors beyond divided government which are far more meaningful in predicting legislative gridlock (legislative polarization being the most important). Anyway, I do not have time at the moment to flesh out this article, but I wanted to leave this note so I (or someone else) can fix the problem and flesh out this article.

table reference
from the book "The challenge of democracy" (brief edition) Huff 3rd edition Janda/Berry/Goldman (1998) pp 234-235. Houghton Mifflin Comapany

Shouldn't the 2001-2003 entry at least have an asterisk given that Jeffords was a Republican until May of '01? Through that period the composition of the senate was 49 Dem, 50 Rep and 1 Ind with a Republican VP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradenko (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous definition
"Divided Government" in the United States is not about party control, it's about Executive, Legislative, and Judicial powers being separated into three different branches. It was invented in the United States Constitution, which was written before political parties existed in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.29.132 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That is the "separation of powers" doctrine. The judiciary are non-political and do not govern. This article is about the politicians of the executive government and the politicians of the legislature being divided by opposing party-political loyalties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.250.44 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced claim re: Watergate
I'm not an expert in political history or political science, but I'm a fairly knowledgeable layman, and I'm not familiar with any source that identifies Watergate as the source of a general belief in the benefits of divided government. I've removed this statement before, but it's reappeared; I've now flagged it as requiring a citation. Are there any poli-sci experts out there who can help resolve this issue? Rmccowen (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated Chart
The graphic on the right side of this page is excellent. Can we request one that has a longer timescale? Cecoppola (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
This article substantially overlaps in subject matter with Presidents of the United States and control of Congress. I would suggest merging them. Wyddgrug (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I just had exactly the same thought, and added the merge tags on both pages before seeing your comment just now. Seems a very strange coincidence that we would both come up with the same idea at the same time, given these articles have both been around for years! Perhaps the thought process was driven by the failure of Trumpcare, despite having control of both houses. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's why I was looking at the article, to get a sense of when the last few presidents have had the luxury of their parties being in control of Congress. Thanks for adding the merge templates. Wyddgrug (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)