The gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The system is deliberately rich in checks and balances so as to make it difficult for a slim majority or a determined plurality to hijack the state. You basically require a supermajority for any radical change.
I think a gridlocked majoritarian system is probably preferable to a proportional one that requires governments to get in bed with far right/left 'kingmakers' who hold the balance of power - e.g. Sweden, Netherlands, etc.
The system is designed to change slowly but it absolutely was not intentionally designed to be a two party system. That is an unintentional emergent property of the voting mechanism.
The US "kingmakers" are instead inside the parties. A system where one person can hold vital bills hostage through filibuster or even just the very narrow vote margins is a system which encourages extremism.
As an American I agree with grid lock being a feature. I don't like rapid change. Let's argue for a few years so we have time to think of all the angles.
It doesn't seem like that's how it works, but it does. Even the sensationalist headlines morph and the talking heads add/change their propaganda over time.
It's got it's draw backs for sure, but the system is working as intended.
" hink a gridlocked majoritarian system is probably preferable to a proportional one that requires governments to get in bed with far right/left 'kingmakers' " Except this is the case in the US
