I would argue the end-users (voters) mostly consider this a bug while the developers (majority party legislators at the state level) consider it a feature.
Also, the founding fathers famously made it difficult for Congress to change anything, so dysfunction was definitely a feature.
> I would argue the end-users (voters) mostly consider this a bug while the developers (majority party legislators at the state level) consider it a feature.
Voters consider the paralysis a feature when it is presenting a hostile legislative majority or executive from realizing their agenda, and a bug when it is preventing a friendly one.
> Voters consider the paralysis a feature when it is presenting a hostile legislative majority or executive from realizing their agenda, and a bug when it is preventing a friendly one.
Yes, that's what they said: paralysis is always a feature, because the legislative majority is always hostile to the people.
Not so sure about that. I suppose the original intent was to have a healthy debate around major policy decisions. It's a check against wanton liberalism or conservatism. Congress seems eager to pass spending bills and take away our privacy. They move at light speed when doing that.
Also, the founding fathers famously made it difficult for Congress to change anything, so dysfunction was definitely a feature.