Weirdly this belief is extremely effective at securing the continuity of the government and status quo. I guess it all depends on how you define successful.
But such a byzantine system really depends upon both sides playing by the rules–in essence, believing there’s something to the infallible philosopher-gods who founded the country–or else it just becomes a series of cynical power grabs exploiting weird inefficiencies in the political system.
So, yeah, that pretty much takes us to the present!
If Americans believe in anything it’s in not breaking the streak. In the land of lucky hats and wearing the same underwear to every game because that’s what you were wearing when your team won the championship it makes sense. Can’t change the constitution when we’re on a couple century hot streak.
I’m racking my brain too. I honestly can’t think of a single aspect of the whole US political system that is best among options, let alone the electoral system.
I don’t disagree but this seems too easy. It would mean every other county didn’t have this same pressure. They all have elites too yet made better choices.
If you believe that transparency is a good thing, the general concept of (in theory) selection of a party’s nominees via an open process by voters is better than a choice made behind closed doors by party officials, even if there is a pro forma public vote to ratify that brokered decision, although the implementation of the concept is done poorly.
The Founders were so perfect that they obviously foresaw the eventuality of the fillibuster and primary system, therefore we must not question these things.
The core problem is your system puts way too much emphasis on the president. Voting for a party (aka a set of ideas) is far superior to the cult of personality in the US.
The US was an early modern democracy and all the other countries had the opportunity to learn from America’s mistakes. The US system was an improvement over its predecessor and generally better than what other countries were doing at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution.
It’s an interesting historical question. It literally could just be variance although it’s odd the US would choose the poorer option for nearly every aspect of the system.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that. You really sound like you’re looking for a fight and you’re not going to find a sparring partner here who will give you a full-throated defense of the American political system.
I don’t think the US will ever move to a parliamentary system in our lifetimes unless there is a complete collapse of the government. My favorite idea for a fix is to break up the unitary executive by having separately elected offices for attorney general and secretary of the treasury and separating out the functions of the Departments of Justice and Treasury so that they are not under the control of the president.
There were some options they considered but did not implement. Apportionment via taxes paid rather than population. A unicameral legislature with one vote per state, just as under the Articles of Confederation. A seven-year term for presidents.
I am totally a casualfan on this stuff, but it does seem to me that there’s a throughline from the character traits that spurred the original Europeans to come here in the first place, and end up settling successfully, to where we are today. The American “fuck you, I’m doing it my way” approach was a super awesome way to get a country going - any other way of thinking would’ve balked at murdering so many indigenous people. And slavery ldo. Like, how else could this have turned out?
Anyways, a proper discussion needs a historical context. The American system was innovative for its time by significantly reducing the power of the executive decision maker. A president is not a king. In theory, anyways.
Im not a historian and reading Zinn is on my list, but at the time keeping the states together was the most important thing for the founders. So we get this argle bargle, Federal vs states, executive vs legislative, that through time has morphed into what it is now. The biggest problem is that it is so hard to change. I don’t know if I’m adding anything, but our 18th century form of government was set-up to keep a fledgling nation of disparate land owners over a large geographical area together. It succeeded (and you’re welcome for your freedom). It wasn’t made to be able to change with the times.
They have changed it 27 times though. It’s seems to me it worked ok for a while but wasn’t designed well for the modern world and as you said it’s too hard to change. It’s just interesting they didn’t accidentally end up with at least one aspect that is best compared to the alternatives. One wouldn’t predict a perfect record of bad.