I'm actually a big fan of the competing interests concept, it is a very eloquent solution. Where it goes off the rails though is the combination of that concept and the involuntary surrender of individual sovereignty to the very same people with whom your interests compete.

But they burn quite good.

Reasonable results that allowed most people to go about their lives unmolested from imperfect people. I don't think they imagined "good results".

Oh I remember my highschool civics lessons, but I then went on to study game theory. Consider the incentive imbalance: if it costs me 10k hours to legislatively get one penny from every citizen, and the same number of hours are required to frustrate my attempt - guess who has the greater incentive.

Checks and balances are fine in theory. In practice, the executive and judiciary are overpowered. Judicial review quickly becomes judicial activism. Executive orders are a unilateral get-out-of-checks-and-balances-free card in many cases, lamentations of scholars notwithstanding. Additionally, there is no proper "federalism" so to speak of. It's a marble cake federalism of various entangled relationships and procurements between federal, state and private institutions with disparate enforcement and contractual obligations.

Americans have deified their Founding Fathers to such an absurd extent that they seem to be unable to think critically. That maybe Hamilton and Madison were engaging in wishful thinking. That maybe the anti-federalists were right. That maybe Henry Clay's American System and his antecedent in Hamilton largely botched the ideal separation-of-powers republic from the beginning.

> The whole point of checks and balances is to get good results from imperfect people.

Granted, it uses an imperfect system of consensus to "do" this right now.