American democracy isn't efficient, and it seems like it was the design plan. Fundamentally there is a buffer between the electorate and the actual election (it's called the electoral college.) Then fundamentally, most issues are never voted on by the electorate and because of that, it kind of rare that they are voted on at all. Every election "abortion" comes up but when is the last time the US senate has actually voted on it?
There are things to make it more 'efficient' but again, the slowness with which things happen is kind of a feature, they tend to stick better when they do happen. Look back, we didn't re-enslave people. We did have the prohibition but overall the constitution hasn't been retouched that much.
There are also sets of fundamentally unsafe issues: abortion, maybe birth control (oddly, I thought that one was sort of settled but there are a vocal minority that seem to be offended by its very concept) and anything that cuts entitlements. Short of a booming growing economy, I think it might be safe to say the US budget won't be "balanced" until the baby-boomers die off as it just might not be a realistic goal, never mind the debt. You can't touch those unsafe issues without taking huge political risk
Don't get me wrong, if those issue affect you personally it sure does suck, but the design is for slow change. The dichotomies it presses, such as if you are against abortion, by proxy you are also don't accept climate change, among other things. That's the incredibly frustrating part.
I believe it was Chuck D that said "neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant"
American democracy isn't efficient, and it seems like it was the design plan. Fundamentally there is a buffer between the electorate and the actual election (it's called the electoral college.) Then fundamentally, most issues are never voted on by the electorate and because of that, it kind of rare that they are voted on at all. Every election "abortion" comes up but when is the last time the US senate has actually voted on it?
There are things to make it more 'efficient' but again, the slowness with which things happen is kind of a feature, they tend to stick better when they do happen. Look back, we didn't re-enslave people. We did have the prohibition but overall the constitution hasn't been retouched that much.
There are also sets of fundamentally unsafe issues: abortion, maybe birth control (oddly, I thought that one was sort of settled but there are a vocal minority that seem to be offended by its very concept) and anything that cuts entitlements. Short of a booming growing economy, I think it might be safe to say the US budget won't be "balanced" until the baby-boomers die off as it just might not be a realistic goal, never mind the debt. You can't touch those unsafe issues without taking huge political risk
Don't get me wrong, if those issue affect you personally it sure does suck, but the design is for slow change. The dichotomies it presses, such as if you are against abortion, by proxy you are also don't accept climate change, among other things. That's the incredibly frustrating part.
I believe it was Chuck D that said "neither party is mine, not the jackass or the elephant"