over ridiculous matters, stuff like, "Because you won't agree with our demands for Euthenasia, we won't support your desire for better infrastructure"

on the other hand, all of them could find solice in voting to remove the citizens rights to a public referendum...

Which is strange, since I dont recall parties here bickering over issues like that. For example, I am only aware of 2 positions as of now, finance is now under the mayor of penang, our version of san fran. And defence is under former leader of PAS.

They work in accordance to their own choices. People can disagree but they can still do it. And if you are unhappy, you can state it, and if its bad enough, you join another coalition instead.

Funny thing, those two I mentioned were opponents before. Some progressive chinese guy and a really relligious malay guy. Both were arrested under some anti sedition law.

well i guess the difference here is that theres no big country-wide issues to tackle (aside from the mass immigration, but they're pro-that and anti-referendum to oppose it)

So they start bickering, because they know the people won't hang them for wasting time and lives

Or that the country is not big enough. US has many states, each if their own dinstinct culture and beliefs. They then have more freedom on the policies they can enact. Not the case here.

We also have monarches as well, though they are pretty much just figureheads.

Though I am getting the feeling that this system is deliberately designed to be inefficient.

you misunderstand,

Its like how democrats are blocking everything in America because Trump doesn't want illegal immigration to run rampant
like how they didn't vote on a budget earlier this year.

Basically, "You don't want to help our niché issue, so we'll just stop everything, and hurt everyone"

Hence why even a minority can block something.

The American system was designed to be conservative in nature, meaning resistant to rapid, radical change. As opposed to parliamentary systems in which a majority government effectively has total and unassailable power.

There are benefits and drawbacks to such a system.

The benefit is that it's less amenable to the whims of the mob. The drawback is that it's less adaptive to rapidly changing conditions.

Huh, I. Didnt hear that before, but it does make sense.

The original form of the American system was even more conservative. Senators were appointed and recalled by state legislature, and state legislatures don't tend to change in make-up very often.

Well my explanation was how would you like it if you as a farmer was yold what not to do by some city dweller.

Federalism was supposed to alleviate that. Unfortunately Federalism has lost most of its strength post-Reconstruction.

The original idea was that individual states would handle most of their own affairs, and only the common defense, borders, etc and the trade between states would be subject to federal law.

Well basically the civil war was about a disagreement regarding that.

Well, there was a lot of preemptive action taken by the South. They perceived eventual legal loss of their ability to own slaves, and so acted extra-legally before such legal action could be taken.

Slavery wasn't banned until after the war was well underway.

And under the system of federal government that existed at the time, it's quite possible that had the South stayed in the union that they would've held onto their slaves for decades more.

Thing is, it was about how much overreach a singular govt would have.

Confederates wanted less govt. But to establish a rule of law, you have to be prepared to shoot anyone who adamantly refuses.

a lot of changes in recent time have made it more adaptive to rapidly changing conditions at the cost of consolidating power.

which is slightly ironic because smaller, independent units with autonomy are much quicker to adapt to things that are causing a direct problem to them, which may not end up being problems elsewhere

isn't that like 50% of the gun debate issue?
city slickers wanting all guns away (NYC, LA and D.C.)
country people needing it to defend property and hunt pests? (anywhere outside cities)

cuz those that want it removed want it everywhere in every state

not exactly, but is a noticeable trend.

there are people in the inner cities who want guns to protect themselves from others with guns, and there are people who live in the country who are animal loving hippies who will probably get eaten by a bear

I get what you mean though,

Arizona doesn't need a federal supply for snow-tires

Change at the federal level should be hard for that reason. Because a change at the federal level should be resistant to rapid change to prevent mod rule, and prevent tyranny. Give the states more power, they can adapt quickly. if each state can adapt quickly, the country can adapt quickly. But it will not happen at the same time.

that is the downside

at least, in some people's eyes

yeah

i still don't get why anti-gun people go right to the feds first. like hello, you need a hell of a lot less people to flip a state than to flip the feds.

but then again, the upside is, that some places don't need to adapt a lot, so they don't have to waste federal funds, which can then be shifted to states that DO

like no shit nothing "gets done" to you, you are trying to take on texas when you don't even need to.

i dont think most of those people know any better, I don't even think they can tell the difference between State and Federal government

To them its just "the government" so "the government" should control guns etc

and who's at the top of "the government?" Congress and the president