Good for America, voting

In the previous post, how to best execute a voting strategy centered on local benefit was explored. In this post I want to explore my voting premise – in short what I consider best for the nation and the liberties we enjoy. I consider a local advantage voting strategy to be bad in the long run, as it will lead to bad feelings and lack of cooperation. The civil war was caused in part by regional politics. I think, things are different now because people move a lot from region to region from rural to city. I intend not to dwell on any specific policy proposals, and to consider the two parties as the only viable political contenders for power.

Since I've been paying attention to politics (about 1990) it seems that the best goverment occurs when power is split at the highest level. When one party controls both the white house and congress we are governed less efectively.
Breakdown:
George H.W. Bush: always governed with an opposing party in control of congress.
Bill Clinton: Two years of a friendly congress, last six years opposing.
George Bush: Six years of friendly, last two years of opposing.

Consider these examples and time periods. What years were clintons best? what years were bushes best.

Why is this?
1. Principle of checks and balances – they keep each other honest.
2. Rule from the center. Each party has the tendency to elect candidates who are respectively left of center and right of center. These people having to work together or working against each other makes a rule from center more likely – certainly nothing is going to be passed that the majority of the country dislikes as one party or the other can make political hay in blocking it.