2. Advocates of a parliamentary system argue that Congress is inefficient, moves slowly and develops policies filled with compromises. What evidence supports this negative evaluation? Your answer should discuss the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the influence of the electoral process, the power of congressional leaders, the role of political parties and the impact of the legislative process.
I'll be glad to critique your answer.
blah
1. Founders- The founders were afraid of a strong central power so congress was weakened to protect the rights of the people, making it ineffective at times.
2. Electoral System- The primary elections lessen party control and force candidates and personal staffs to focus attention towards the campaign. This causes the legislative business of congress to lose attention and add to the ineffectiveness.
3. Leadership- The congressional leaders have little formal powers to control legislature. The leaders have no power over the committees, who have the power to progress or shut down a bill proposal.
4. Parties- Political parties cannot control the actions of individual members so their control is limited. Caucuses have added to the limitation of power for parties.
5. Legislative Process- There is multiple instances where a bill can be shut down (Presidential Veto, Filibuster, Congressional Committees). Committees are gaining power and their power is overlapping with other committees causing debate and gridlock. The bicameral system of congress has also proven to halt the bill process.
To evaluate the negative aspects of Congress, we can examine different factors, such as:
1. Intentions of the Founding Fathers: The Founding Fathers intended for the legislative branch to deliberate on issues and ensure that policies are well-discussed and thoroughly analyzed. This intention could be seen as contributing to a slower decision-making process.
2. Influence of the electoral process: In a parliamentary system, where executive power is directly linked to the legislature, the government can usually act more swiftly and efficiently because there is a direct and immediate consequence of the executive's actions on the parliamentary majority. In Congress, however, the separation of powers means that the President can act without direct approval or accountability from Congress, which can lead to slower decision-making.
3. Power of congressional leaders: Congressional leaders, such as the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, play a significant role in setting the legislative agenda. Their powers to control the flow of legislation, committee assignments, and the scheduling of debates can sometimes result in policies being influenced by a few individuals rather than reflecting the will of the entire body. This concentration of power in congressional leaders can lead to policies that may not represent the broader consensus of the members.
4. Role of political parties: Political parties have a powerful influence in Congress. While parties help facilitate coalitions and enable legislation to move forward, they can also lead to more partisan and polarized outcomes. These partisan dynamics often result in policy compromises that please certain factions but do not necessarily produce policies with broad-based support, potentially slowing down the legislative process.
5. Impact of the legislative process: The legislative process in Congress can be complex and time-consuming. Bills are subject to multiple committee reviews and floor debates, which can result in significant changes or even the dilution of the original proposal. These lengthy procedures can lead to compromises that may not satisfy all factions, contribute to the perception of inefficiency, and slow the passage of legislation.
When evaluating the negative aspects of Congress, it's important to recognize that the system's design aimed to ensure deliberation, broad representation, and checks and balances. While these elements are intended to safeguard against hasty decision-making, they can also contribute to slower processes and compromises that may not fully satisfy everyone.