> Just because something is the "will of the people" doesn't necessarily make it a good thing.
Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it's a good thing. To veto change is not inherently more good than to enact change. In the general, abstract case, "legislative change" and "the legislative status quo" should be considered equally respectable options, and, in this formulation, it becomes clear that heavily tilting the playing field in favour of one of those things is essentially a partisan rigging of the game.
There are four separate and independent bodies that can veto federal legislation, which is absolutely ridiculous. I haven't gotten around to reading the late Linz's <em>The Failure of Presidential Democracy</em>, but I'm definitely a fan of the title.
> FYI, Idaho's ratio or House seats to population is 1:786,750, and New York State's is 1:719,298. It's reasonably close, but not perfect. Actually check out Montana vs. Rhode Island, and it gets bad.
That's why I say to abolish the enormously malapportioned Senate rather than the somewhat malapportioned House.
But this is another of the counterproductive results of the poorly-drafted Constitution. There's no particular reason why Congressional districts ought to line up with state borders. Without the absurd requirements of districts being apportioned by state, it wouldn't be a problem.
But electoral reform is a separate conversation from political reform.
> So go full Parliamentary Democracy with a Prime Minister and a ceremonial Head of State?
Sure. Unicameral parliamentary democracy. There's nothing good in bicameralism that can't be achieved through federalism—which the United States has plenty of.
That way, when someone wins an election, they actually win the election. Under the existing American system, one party can win the Presidency, and the other can win Congress; or one party can win the House, and the other can win the Senate. It seems like everybody wins. But who gets to enact their policy agenda in this situation? Nobody! So everybody loses! Everybody loses and nobody is happy.
And, furthermore, bicameralism and presidentialism both make it more difficult for low-information voters who just want to "kick the bums out". Someone can say, "You say you don't like the state of the government these past few years, but this is the fault of the obstructionist Party B, who control one of the arms of government, and are blocking all the measures the virtuous Party A is trying to implement to help out people like you," and they have a good point. Unicameral parliamentarianism neatly solves this problem.
Yeah never gonna happen lol.
The fact of the matter is... presidential democracy simply doesn't work.