…the basic system works; but that is no excuse for ignoring areas where it could be reformed. In the House the main outrage is gerrymandering. Tortuously shaped “safe” Republican and Democratic seats mean that the real battles are fought among party activists for their party’s nomination. This leads candidates to pander to extremes, and lessens the chances of bipartisan co-operation. An independent commission, already in existence in some states, would take out much of the sting. In the Senate the filibuster is used too often, in part because it is too easy. Senators who want to talk out a bill ought to be obliged to do just that, not rely on a simple procedural vote: voters could then see exactly who was obstructing what.
These defects and others should be corrected. But even if they are not, they do not add up to a system that is as broken as people now claim. American democracy has its peaks and troughs; attempts to reform it dramatically, such as California’s initiative craze, have a mixed history, to put it mildly. Rather than regretting how the Republicans in Congress have behaved, Mr Obama should look harder at his own use of his presidential power.
Interesting article. After offering an interesting analysis of gerrymandering and other reasons stakeholders have little interest in bipartisan cooperation, they then proceed to blame Obama. However, there is, in fact, plenty of evidence that Obama is using his executive office to push forward policy.
I’m also struck that they seem oblivious to the idea that it’s not in the Republican’s interest for bipartisanship. If they do have an idea that IS used by the Democrats, who gets credit? They strengthen their position by simply being anti-Obama. It works to their favor. By and large, the health care proposal is one that had been recommended by Republicans a few decades ago.