> Is it really necessary to have such a single powerful figure in the executive branch? As an ignorant outsider, my impression is that the president is only su

> Is it really necessary to have such a single powerful figure in the executive branch? As an ignorant outsider, my impression is that the president is only supposed to 'preside' over things. Delegate and appoint people. Sign bills as a ceremony. The real decision-making should be happening by the people's representatives in congress, while the Supreme court can guard against decisions which would violate the constitution. But then parties form, partisanship happens, and congress stops making meaningful changes. Blocking anything that the dems put forward apparently gets votes for senators. You don't even need filibusters to prevent votes; just the suggestion of one. So without a working congress, the President and the courts end up picking up the slack, and wield more power than they should. I naively wish that there was some way for congress to actually be a congress, and for each member to vote his/her conscience on every single matter.