I heartily agree, but the 2 and 4 year timeframes and existing imbalances in the current electoral system (gerrymandering, wildly varying senatorial electorates etc), make that terribly difficult to achieve in practice.
That sounds like a very good argument for more reform, not less. The fact is those problems have always existed and aren't going away any time soon, so while waiting for better conditions before we tackle major societal problems might seem sensible in theory, in practice it just means letting the wounds fester indefinitely.
Sure, but how are you going to achieve that? I'd like an entirely different constitutional order (a federalized wikiocracy, in a nutshell) but that would require either a wholesale redrafting or recission of the Constitution.
Look at the current situation where there is a 50-50 tie in the Senate, but existing rules create a 60 vote threshold for most legislation. There are a whole lot of issues that I'd like to see reform on, but right now the votes are not there for either party to do so.
The constitution only requires a simple majority of the senate to pass a bill, and there is a tiebreaking vote. The 60 vote threshold is only because of a self-imposed extra-constitutional rule, one which can be abolished with a simple majority vote via the "nuclear option" [0]
Effective lawmaking is not some impossible feat under our current system, it was commonplace until very recently. All that has changed is that we've grown complacent and now continue to vote for those who refuse to do their jobs.
