I'm generally disappointed by how poorly professional writers seem to understand their own political system ...
Having lived in a parliamentary system my entire life, observed the American system, and studied both, I have noticed that a lot of the "flaws" people see in either system are by design; and if they're taken away you're encouraging the creation of a totalitarian state or a failed state. To demonstrate my point:
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?
The president, the house and the senate each have seperate responsibilities and powers to require co-operation of the government; and it acts to prevent the rule of tyrants and protects the rights of the states. Could you imagine what would happen if the Senate and House both had their own incompatible budgets? How would the government choose which one to operate based on? What would happen if one favoured the population dense states at the expense of the more sparsely populated states?
