The way Congress has the ability to hold the country hostage while it throws a tantrum I would consider a big con.

Until the Supreme Court steps in and says "do your jobs or there's gonna be mighty hell to pay"


hence checks and balances

Quote from: Mad Max on September 25, 2014, 02:21:11 PM

The way Congress has the ability to hold the country hostage while it throws a tantrum I would consider a big con.

That's what checks and balances are supposed to prevent.

And clearly both our checks and our balances are entirely ineffectual.

You could compare to the chinese system.

Their form of govt is relatively nimble and quick. It can order damns to be built, force people out of homes to turn slums into brand new apts, invest heavily in rail or green energy etc.

The US govt in comparison is very slow and looks almost broken with all the gridlock, but its not designed for speed. Its designed with longevity in mind. Eventually you'll get a shit head in power who fucks everything up. Its pretty easy for us to get rid of them with relatively little damage done. But in a govt without those balances that person/party becomes entrenched and are harder to dislodge.

It could also be argued that some of those checks and balances are ineffective. For example the president technically requires congress' approval to go to war. Yet congress never voted on bombing syria because we're not calling it a war. So, do you really want to work through gridlock in order to combat terrorist threats, or do you trust the executive branch with enough power for them to legally kill American citizens without trial (right now its the latter, which unfortunately is probably the best option.)

Plus looking at net neutrality the FCC is basically run by former lobbyists for the cable providers. So corruption can wear away at some of those checks and balances and you're just stuck with the gridlock. But I guess that all goes back to a democracy only being as good as its voters.