I'm not sure it's so "broken". The consequences of breaking a rule are just that you have to... deal with the consequences of breaking that rule. To the extent

I'm not sure it's so "broken". The consequences of breaking a rule are just that you have to... deal with the consequences of breaking that rule. To the extent that that rule has consequences, and the consequences are enforced. Like, if you stop showing up at your job because you disagree with the labor conditions, you get fired. But if everyone in the factory stops showing up at their job, it's suddenly called a "strike" and the apparatus for punishment doesn't work any more... maybe this time, the consequences for the same action are "you get a raise and better healthcare". The rules for legislative bodies generally allow legislators to take more and more extreme actions to influence which laws get passed. As legislators take more extreme actions, the consequences get correspondingly more severe. This seems like "functioning as intended" to me. The absentee legislators have skin in the game... it's not like they can freely walk away from the legislature whenever they disagree with a law. Just like a striking factory worker can freely walk away from their job at the factory and go on strike. These more extreme actions fizzle out, force the other side to reach a compromise, or backfire. The idea that people "should" just sit down and talk things out doesn't scan, IMO. These people are accountable to the people who elected them first, and the legislative body second.