The problem with checks and balances is that partisanship is paralyzing. If each side deems their causes good and the opponent evil that must be stopped, nothing happens. Some mechanism is required to build cooperation. Patriotism used to serve that role in the US but it’s not functioning since it too is becoming political.
I used to think so, but as I read more about the founding fathers I’m beginning to think they had all the same personality conflicts we have today. Maybe there’s a case that with today’s media our current reps are more accountable to their constituents, but (superficially at least) most would interpret that as a good thing
Disclaimer: this is just my view as a Canadian, not sure if studies back this up.
I think it's a feature. We seem to move a lot faster and it doesn't always work, but for the most part, having MPs as the executive branch allows people at the top to legislate what they need to succeed.
> On the other, malevolent change can be stymied indefinitely
When the party that made the "malevolent" change is kicked out, then whatever they did can be reverted very easily.
Contrast that with: if passing anything is hard, and a "malevolent" change does manage to be rammed through somehow (e.g., one party controls things for a two-year period), then reversing it will also be very difficult.
I'm not wholly convinced the first statement is the case. It's probably true for some types of changes like Executive Orders than can be easily repealed. Others, like laws and judge selections, take much longer to revert. I wonder if this is due to the lobbying culture in combination to competing interests.
Somewhat humorous example: In response to the need for warm clothing in the Korean War, US lawmakers instituted an alpaca subsidy in 1952. This subsidy remained in place for over 40 years.[1]
I do think there’s evidence that your second statement is true. Bad policy takes a lot of political will to overturn.
Correct, but as stated in the parent I was asking specifically about the characteristics of the US system.
I personally think it was deliberately put intended as a check/balance. Af the far end of spectrum, the most “efficient” form of government is a dictatorship. I’m not sure if what the US has is the correct balance, though.
On one hand, beneficial change can be painstakingly slow. On the other, malevolent change can be stymied indefinitely
Edit: clarify my statement was in reference to the US