Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
The system here is designed to run on gridlock. Really. (And it's designed to have more than two parties, dammit, which is a lot of the problems.) The premise is supposed to be, we have these inalienable rights, based on the premises of liberty and justice for all, and so on. And we can do anything we want, providing we're not stepping on someone else's rights. (So the theory goes.)
In that case, making new laws, which basically means "new restrictions on what people can do," should be difficult. We should need a whole lot of people of different perspectives to agree on the need for new laws. Because of this, the system allows filibusters and has two legislative houses, so that new rules aren't easily passed, even if they're strongly desired by whatever group is more popular at the moment. The opposition is supposed to have an easier time blocking than the party-in-power is supposed to have to make laws.
The problems: even when everybody agrees that *something* needs to be done, it's hard to get enough agreement to do it. Also, the system was designed for several hundred thousand to a couple-million people, not 350 million; it didn't take into account that many special interest groups getting filtered over and over into two large parties. And, of course, the system was designed pre-telephone; it was supposed to be okay to argue the point of a topic for weeks or even months. New data wasn't supposed to come in every six hours, and the lawmakers certainly weren't supposed to have to give press reports every three days with pretty soundbites or face public outrage.
|
Well said. The "melting pot" we have become was never in the minds of the founders. It's a new beast. And, yes, the internet has changed the dynamics to a certain extent. I think for the better for the most part. The press.... yikes. They have so dropped the ball and become a joke. I wish we had something akin to the BBC on TV. Oh well, we have NPR. That's the closest thing I feel gets to decent reporting anymore.