Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy

[BmorePat87]

(10-17-2017, 08:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: I have a hard time computing that.


Yeah, that didn't make it much easier.
Hasn't Trumps administration, where staffers and professional politicians already left in astonishing numbers, still hundreds of appointments to fill? I ask that because we solve that problem by not changing too much staff in the first place. Just the heads, basically. While this is not ideal, it's still a better safeguard than hoping that big enough parties produce a sufficient number of capable people. I do not see that as a given, and even if it were someone still would need to choose them.

When you only have two parties, elections tend to result in incumbents remaining in power and there being less major changes. They're able to build relationships with the opposing party far easier as there's only one opposing party to work with. The legislative process is more efficient as a result.

A lot of the earlier Trump administration staff was his people. As they have failed, more career Republicans have joined and you have stability under people like Kelly. Pence also played a role in this. Congressional Republicans have also been able to limit Trump's influence over legislation. 

I never said it was running smoothly, just that it's running smoother than it would under a multi party system