My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

I also want to note that Con agreed that if I win this debate, he would vote for me as the next President of the US (and vice versa). I am a Canadian, but we can always figure out those "technicalities" and "logistic issues" later. Contention 1: Relieves Government Gridlock The biggest problem in the current US legislative system is the gridlock in government. A good legislative system ought to be effective and the "will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government" [1]. The current system makes it prone to failure. I will explain the problem in theory and in practice. Majority of legislations before they are enacted into law, they have to face three hurdles [2]: 1. Must be passed by the House of Representatives (Simple majority). 2. Senate must pass the legislation. But the vote can be blocked by using the filibuster, unless Senate agrees to end the filibuster which requires two thirds of the senate. Ironically, the official website of the US senate (senate. gov) explains filibustering "an effective means to block legislation" [3]. 3. Unless two-thirds of the Senate passed the bill, the President can veto the legislation. This structure leads to divided governments where one party controls the white house, and the other party controls one or both chambers of government. Since 1969, divided governments have become the theme, and only once since then (1977-1979) that one party had control of the white house, both chambers and more than 60% of the senate [4][5]. In other words, if one party wants to block legislation, they easily can. In my proposed system, no such hurdles will exist, and the government will enact the will of the people and pass legislation for their benefits. It enables law makers to do what the citizens have endowed them to do on their behalf. When Obama issued executive orders for immigration, many lawmakers were very critical of him. There are good reasons to that criticism. Obama explains what's wrong with the system "… to those Members of Congress who […] question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill" [6]. The real question is why the congress is failing? Why can't they pass a bill? In my proposed system, passing a bill doesn't face the challenges that the current US system faces. I will just bring a couple of example for illustration. A staggering 73% of Americans were in favor of limiting campaign spending, as well as a majority of Democrat senators (54). In a normal world, a bill of this kind ought to be passed. Not in the US legislative system where only 42 Republican senators were enough to block it [7]. You may also know that last year, the "federal government in the United States has shut down because Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) failed to pass a budget". The cause of the "budget standoff that's led to the shutdown of the US government is more of a conflict between the Republican-dominated House of Representatives and the Democrat-controlled Senate. " My proposed system will not face such hurdles. Contention 2: Failed Promises by Design This contention is closely tied to the first one, and is a side effect of the grid lock in government. Political candidates, especially presidential candidates, campaign prior to every election to present their case to the general public. They make campaign promises of what they plan to deliver for the American people if elected. It's only expected that Americans look for those promises to be implemented if they elected them. However due to the gridlock mentioned in my first contention, politicians may not be able to deliver on their promises and blame other parties for that failure. In essence, the American people are not getting what they were promised to do because of the legislative system, and not because of who they elected. For example, Obama blames the Republicans for preventing him from bringing "the hope and change to America's political system that he campaigned on" [8]. The Republicans weren't able to fair much better. They promised Keystone XL bill [9], but Obama voted against it [10]. Republicans promised to give small businesses a tax deduction, but it died in the Democrat controlled senate [11][12]. If my proposed system was in place, all of these measures would have been implemented. It is not surprising that 76% of Americans don't trust that their politicians will have the capacity able to deliver on their promises [13]. How can one argue that this system enacts the will of the people? A good political system ought to enable politicians to deliver on their promises, and the current system doesn't facilitate it, only complicates it. Contention 3: Promotes Democracy The Undemocratic Senate Every American is considered equal, and that's what democracy is about. However the US senate is highly undemocratic. Every state sends two representatives, regardless of its size. This means that a Wyoming resident has roughly 66 times more representation than that of a resident from California [14]. You might think that this is trivial, but it's not. This leads to non proportional legislations favoring smaller states that bigger ones. For example, Vermont is 30 times less populated that New York, but received 1/4 of the federal stimulus compared to New York [15]. New York Times explains this: "The difference in the fortunes of Rutland and Washington Counties reflects the growing disparity in their citizens’ voting power, and it is not an anomaly". This is undemocratic. As I explained previously, my proposed system will face no such challenges as every citizen is considered equal. The House of Representatives is more proportional to the population size, and in essence more balanced and democratic. The Undemocratic Electoral College The Electoral College in presidential elections is highly undemocratic. Basically, it's a winner take all system where a candidate winning 50.1% of the vote in a state collects all the Electoral College for that state [16]. The Electoral College is proportionally divided between states, but small states receive a minimum of 3 Electoral College votes. . http://www.youtube.com...However this system is undemocratic. Why? Because you can have as little as 22% of the population elect the next president [17] (See video at 4:16). While this is extremely unlikely, there were 4 instances where a president was elected, but not by the majority of Americans [18]. John Quincy Adams won the presidency even though he received 10.44% less of the American voters than Andrew Jackson. This is highly undemocratic. My proposed system allows for fairer representation. Finally, my proposed system doesn't favor one party over the other. It favors what the American people have asked for. Thank you. [1] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 21. Section 3. [2] . http://www.house.gov... [3] . http://www.senate.gov... [4] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://thehill.com... [7] . http://thehill.com... [8] . http://abcnews.go.com... [9] . http://dailycaller.com... [10] . http://time.com... [11] . http://pledge.gop.gov... [12] . http://thomas.loc.gov... [13] . http://www.pewresearch.org... [14] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [15] . http://www.nytimes.com... [16] . http://www.archives.gov... [17] . https://youtu.be... [18] . https://en.wikipedia.org...