A system of checks and balances does a much better job of avoiding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_o

A system of checks and balances does a much better job of avoiding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority than a free-election but gridlock-less system (which is by definition much closer to direct democracy than a checks-and-balances system). Avoiding that can be quite beneficial. The real question is what you give up to get that benefit, right? It seems to me that what you give up is largely the ability to pass legislation that is only favored by a small majority of the population. Things that have overwhelming support still end up getting passed in checks-and-balances systems, generally. I, personally, consider the inability to pass things with small majority support a good thing, especially given statistical fluctuations in such support....