[Ombrageux]

Just making a thread on an interesting post you have.

However, I do personally think Congress is the single worst branch of the U.S. government. Congress is always *extremely* unpopular (20%), it's splintered legislators are the source of pork barreling and horse trading, the Senate in particular has been the single most retarding factor in American democracy (delaying voting rights for Blacks, desegregation, healthcare, etc.).

It's actually a really, really awful system. That is part of the reason no one but Liberia has chosen to create a similar system of government. Democracy-minded people setting up countries usually go for the more sensible Westminster system.

All of this, IMHO, of course!

[JJ]

Well, Liberia and all of Latin and South America.

[Marcus_Ozius]

I wonder if the preference for Westminster style government comes out of it being better or worse than other systems or if it's just the way that a great deal of the world is used to doing things. America was the major power in the western hemisphere (and the founder of Liberia) and had a massive impact on its culture and development. Say what you will about U.S. Latin relations these days, America was, to some extent, viewed as a proper and legitimate example nation, and it seems to have been thought that its system was an effective way to manage a country and to run a government. In the meantime, the British system, owing to its Empire etc., became standard in the half of the world where it was the most familiar way of representative government. The British had the best system readily available suited to the needs of a gradually democratizing Europe with flexibility for individual nations, America had the best readily available system suited to the needs to the revolutionary democracies of the West.
It's an interesting theory.
As for politicians taking themselves seriously, I think the difficulty comes from politicians taking themselves too seriously and not taking the notion of their office seriously enough. As much as pomp and circumstance can make things seem undemocratic or somehow outdated, I think that ceremony serves the valuable purpose of showing people their limits and putting things in perspective. People referred to Scott Brown of Massachusetts as filling Ted Kennedy's senate seat. No, he was filling the seat in the senate which had been held by Ted Kennedy. Senators die, the senate lives on. Presidents die, the presidency lives on. In many ways, I lament the advent of professional politicians as their politics are their life. Where are the independent statesmen who, after a successful and worthy life, enter politics as a crowning achievement? As much as it is argued that politicians must be professional as the world has grown more complex, I wonder at how much worse we could do than how things are now, with our congress. The notion of an independent legislator, serving his nation for the greater glory, with nothing to lose with a lost election, regarding his position with all due respect and reverence, is the ideal person for the position.
I want a Cincinnatus.

[KyleEverett]

I know many people deride the the fact there's so much compromise in Congress as a bad thing, but I'm a fan of the idea that if everyone's mad you have the best solution.

A fragmented legislature does work better if the executive is separate though. I doubt I could ever get elected, but one dream of mine is to return to Canada some day and stand for election as an independent promising that everything I do will be to better my constituency and listen to the residents there. I know that's practically anathema to Canadian politics where people vote for a party rather than their MP.