hacker
If I understand Ricky's arguments, it is possible for a popularly-elected government to possess few checks and balances and still maintain a great degree of freedom and utility to its constituents simply because it has a dependence on the People for its power. Do I understand this argument correctly?
Few checks. But effective checks and balances.
The government of a parliamentary democracy, with a majority in the house, has very few checks on its power.... except the constitution and the need to prepare for the next election. And yet things get done.
Within the legislative process there are also some checks and influences at committee levels and constituents and stake holders have the ability to affect the agenda of the government through lobbying at the various regulatory bodies anddirectly... . But should a government be determined to take a course of action, they can. And they have the 4 or 5 year mandate before an election in which to make their policy work.
The difference Hacker, is that in the US system two majorities (one actually a super majority) and the executive branch are required for a similarly effective period of governance.
And that would only last for two years before an electoral challenge.
Moreover legislation is often subject never ending litigation that means it seldom takes effect immediately. And never ending lobbying at every level including at fairly independent regulatory bodies...
That and the parliamentary chicanery that stops "clean votes" on non-controversial matters (see Zika virus funding) stops much action. Then the never ending requirement of fund raising for elections means the representatives are rarely without the need to raise money and provide influence to those that they seek the money from. The vast amount required, and the lack of any restraint, means the very wealthy have an outsized influence.
The complexity of the system makes it prone to abuse by the minority and the monied.
(It could be argued tha the simpleness of a majority parliamentary system could lead to abuse by the majority. Or at least by the party with the majority seats - which is not always the same thing. That is true. But the electorate can end that abuse.
So on balance do you want the potential for 5 years of abuse by a majority, or the ongoing complexity that leads to abuse by a minority seeking to stop any action that does not benefit them?
What is the current popularity of Congress?
bbauska
Just think of what would have happened if Bush 43 was able to institute his desire w/o Congressional oversight
Which desire was that? The invasion of Iraq?
How'd that over sight work out?
One of the great myths is that elected representatives can always provide effective oversight by micro managing agencies of the government. Tha is often demonstrated when we see public hearings of Congressional oversight committees.