Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by angerman | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

angerman·

According to the nytimes it looks like the following right now:

- President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans

Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?

View on HN

Ideally politicians would be adults and work out deals, like in the old days. Or maybe this is why most democracies have parliamentary systems.

I'm not convinced that such "old days" ever existed. I'm open to the idea, but the more I learn of history, the more it seems like the deals were the exception, not the rule. The system was designed from the beginning to make things difficult.

Maybe survivorship bias? We hear about the deals that were made but not all the ones that fell through.

I think you are onto something with this.

I like to consider all the compromises in the antebellum United States. They show up in the history books as great legislative successes, but in the end, a half century of dispute came down to a war.

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." (Thoreau)

Gridlock in the US government is a feature, not a bug, if for no other reason than it forces polarized, mutually opposed interests to compromise their principles and self-interest to get anything done.

Refresh your page. Upshot has Trump with a 59% chance to win.

FL, NH and MI are leaning Trump at the moment. It's looking a lot closer than it did even last week.

As someone who feels that most times new government initiatives have a net negative impact, a gridlocked system sounds like a decent outcome, all things considered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com