Think about it: it’s very easy to focus your attention on a single senator, who can then hold up the entire process. Even if you were to do something as simple as eliminate the filibuster, that a very wide avenue for obstruction would be shut down, and it would take more work on part of those interests to achieve the same results, which could have the result of diluting their impact. Simply put, the more obstruction, the more opportunities for those interests to adversely effect legislation.

Isn’t this a matter of 2+2+Smoke = 10?

Special/parochial interests are wield enormous influence over electoral fates of legislators, so I don’t see how this proposal would reduce their power, even if there are fewer opportunities for them to enter the legislative process.

Is it even prudent to give more concentrated power to legislative majorities in a country this large and diverse? I mean it’s something that comes up infrequently, that perhaps Congress should be more parliamentary, but well-functioning parliamentary democracies have three key features relative to America: they’re smaller, less heterogeneous, and representatives – on average – represent fewer constituents.

If anything, this system makes intra-party loyalty the crucial determinant for legislative success, which, in turn, would seem likely to make legislation more polar. Which might make it “better” legislation, but I question whether contentious legislation will retain enough support among the people to be executed well. Essentially, I question whether the nation is prepared to support the bold reform your reforms would lead to. It very well could be, but for all the complaints of how moderate and status quo oriented reform is today, rarely do we have to consider issues of capacity and continued public support.