[angerman]

According to the nytimes it looks like the following right now:

- President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans

Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?

[jdavis703]

Ideally politicians would be adults and work out deals, like in the old days. Or maybe this is why most democracies have parliamentary systems.

[andars]

I'm not convinced that such "old days" ever existed. I'm open to the idea, but the more I learn of history, the more it seems like the deals were the exception, not the rule. The system was designed from the beginning to make things difficult.

[flukus]

Maybe survivorship bias? We hear about the deals that were made but not all the ones that fell through.

[andars]

I think you are onto something with this.

I like to consider all the compromises in the antebellum United States. They show up in the history books as great legislative successes, but in the end, a half century of dispute came down to a war.

[krapp]

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." (Thoreau)

Gridlock in the US government is a feature, not a bug, if for no other reason than it forces polarized, mutually opposed interests to compromise their principles and self-interest to get anything done.

[Analemma_]

Refresh your page. Upshot has Trump with a 59% chance to win.

[Natsu]

FL, NH and MI are leaning Trump at the moment. It's looking a lot closer than it did even last week.

[drcode]

As someone who feels that most times new government initiatives have a net negative impact, a gridlocked system sounds like a decent outcome, all things considered.