> The benefit (prevent rash action and ensure control of a single branch/chamber/etc does not lead to negative outcomes) are effectively being presented while t

> The benefit (prevent rash action and ensure control of a single branch/chamber/etc does not lead to negative outcomes) are effectively being presented while the downside is not, and people then go on to blindly chant these merits in their adult life and political life too. I feel like you're just ranting against a strawman here. I did public k-12 in a deep red state with teachers who were vocally conservative, and I remember them teaching the trade off (which is: checks and balances slow things down and make government more rigid, but can protect against abuse of power, especially from the executive). The thing is, most likely neither of us actually knows what's being taught in K-12 classrooms and we can only really speculate > but having 30-40% of the public able to drag the whole system to a halt is a bad design even if it springs from well-intentioned goals. It's only bad design if you don't agree with that 30-40%, else it's a lifesaver. Similar reasoning where you advocate for empowering the execute branch. In certain rare cases like FDR you could make the argument that it's beneficial and it wouldn't be far off, but FDR is the exception, not the rule