Political systems with two polarized and unrepresentative lawmaking bodies produce the highest level of voter welfare.
Legislative gridlock acts as a stabilizing force that prevents extreme and damaging policy swings. Most people view a do-nothing Congress as a failure of democracy that needs to be fixed. The model suggests that gridlock is actually a rational feature of institutional design to protect the public. Polarization ensures that only the most necessary and broadly beneficial laws can pass through the friction. Voters are often better off when their representatives are locked in a stalemate rather than rushing to pass partisan agendas.
Rational Gridlock
SSRN · 4859941
We examine the design of lawmaking institutions when advocates have agenda setting power and there is randomness in the status quo laws eligible for reform. The institutional designer maximizes voter welfare. We find that the optimal arrangement consists of two lawmaking institutions that must agree to enact any reforms. The institutions do not share preferences with one another or with the median voter. As a result, gridlock arises: the institutions reject some reforms that the median voter fav