EDIT: I think a lot of people overlook that the main benefit of democracy isnt that we necessarily get the best or even good leadership, but that we have mechanisms to boot leaders in an orderly and bloodless manner. Couple that with the other features of modern democracy, namely a broad franchise at least theoretically allows more people to voice their dissent, and checks and balances that should keep leaders from going over board. This all stems from a fairly pessimistic view of power and what it does to the people weilding it. I am sure Rith can point to some enlightment philosopher who put it better
Mags: I'd still say that the founding fathers' main concern was avoiding concentration of power and domination of one region or branch of government. This was both a matter of principle (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely) and pragmatism (in order to get the south on board it was necessary to give the north less power than it's population and wealth would have warranted).
That is why you have a senate (to amplify the strength of small states), independent branches of government, and a relatively weak federal power structure.
So I agree with the statement that the system is set up to make it hard to govern, rather than with the futile vision to ensure good government it has the more modest aim to restrict the ability of bad government to do damage
(Parliamentarism FTW. Except in a crisis.)
I think that emergency routines are separate from, and to some extent independent of, the system used for everyday affairs.
Looking at historical precedent I doubt you can see much difference between parliamentary and presidential systems in crisis response. I can point to a lot of instances where parliamentary countries have responded to crisis by forming broad national coalition governments, or at least put partisanship aside for the duration of the crisis. UK during the world wars, Finland and Sweden during WW2, Sweden during the 90s financial/banking crisis (which hit our country WORSE than the current crisis and had some similarities to the US situation of today, but we put together a bipartisan package and a new framework for the public finances that still stand) all managed fine. During the cold war we had formalised plans for another WW2 style national coalition government in the event of war, and I am sure that would have worked well. Of course there are plenty of examples of where crisis has resulted in bickering and deadlock as well, but you can find that in presidential systems as well.
At any rate it is very important to have a high bar for any state of emergency/crisis powers, since it does have a huge potential for abuse. Countless tinpot dictators in Africa have banned all parties because "partisan bickering" is a problem in the current state of crisis (that tends to last for the dictator's entire lifetime). Latin American military coups follow the same logic, as did Franco, Napoleon, and Caesar…
Yep, the US system was specifically setup to make change hard. i don't think adding more parties would make a difference. And 5 parties can be bought out just as easily as 2.
I partially agree. Any system where it is easy to vote in someone yet not bought (3rd party votes in FPP systems tend to equal blank votes) will tend towards multiple parties.
That said I think unsound lobbyism and outright corruption is tackled best with other tools, mainly increased transparency (where you guys are relatively strong) and active and credible media (where you have issues, both in the quality of the media and in the population's tendency to discount anything that can be seen as viewed through the other party's goggles).