[intended]

The government isn't designed for one party to decide to play winner take all politics. It was assumed that people would find a way to work together, not that one party could punish bipartisanship within its own ranks, and then be rewarded for it.

Furthermore America has been moving towards this for decades. There has been openly shared plans on how this was to be achieved, for multiple different stages. From stacking the courts, to gerry mandering, to creating Fox, to strategies to stack the SC, to more recently project 2025.

---

I am feeling dumb for having to mention this, after re-reading your message. Am i right in suspecting you are aware of these strategies and are driving to a specific point?

[timeon]

> It was assumed that people would find a way to work together

This is not in line with first-past-the-post voting system. If you want to have "people work together" you need coalitions.

[mrguyorama]

The late 1700s predate most mathematical analysis of voting systems.

[intended]

Congress deadlock is part of that idea, that people have to find common cause to work together.