Bad laws, with bad consequences, are enacted everywhere. In dictatorships, bad laws are often bad from the start. In democratic regimes, they’re typically recognized only after the fact. When a parliament reverses a prior parliament, it will know better what works and what doesn’t. Easier passed, easier mended. The filibuster has also served to weaken Congress and empower presidents. Power abhors a vacuum, and if Congress can’t act, presidents have discovered that they have a pen. And so we’ve moved to a constitution of strong presidentialism, which carries with it the risk of dictatorship. Around the world, countries with strong presidents are significantly less free than parliamentary ones. A further problem with the filibuster is the manner in which it absolves political parties from responsibility for the failure to enact useful laws. With both sides blaming the other, politicians are encouraged to behave irresponsibly. In “The American Commonwealth” (1888), James Bryce notes that “if a bad Act is passed or a good one rejected, the blame falls primarily upon the ministry in power.” One can’t duck problems so easily, and that serves to bring politicians to the political center. There would also be less of a scramble to get politically extreme laws passed if lawmakers know they will likely be reversed by a subsequent Congress.