Jonathan Bernstein, in responding to a post by Matthew Yglesias arguing that we need to have a democracy in which a majority can implement its agenda more easily than it can our current system, says that a majoritarian system is unreasonable because it gives the most power to the swing voter and he would prefer:

A Madisonian system, with checks and balances and separated institutions sharing powers, guards against that sort of dictatorship of the swing voters. Elections still matter a lot, but other sorts of representation matter, too. Elections matter not only because they reward good policy outcomes and punish bad ones, to the extent they do that, but also because they mobilize voters to join groups and make demands on the government, and they encourage politicians to take their representative relationships with constituents seriously. And because elections don't determine everything, citizens are encouraged to continue that involvement between elections -- and they really do so! Not all of them, of course, but quite a few, either as activists themselves, or as members of various groups. All of that counts as "democracy," and much of it would be, at least in my view, a lot less successful in a true majoritarian system.

Firstly, it seems to me that in the 2008 election, even though more pro-choice legislators (and of course, the President) have been elected, pro-choice policies have hardly been enacted. There was some speculation that the health care bill might provide additional support for abortion, but the Stupak amendment and the President's Executive Order that came shortly after the health care bill would seem to suggest otherwise.

Secondly, though, I think this misses the point. Yglesias is unhappy that - in essence -winners can't implement their agenda. I imagine he wouldn't care if it was done under a Madisonian or majoritarian system, he just thinks it would be more likely under the latter. What Bernstein is not answering in plugging his own system is how to enact change when one part of those vaunted checks and balances are preventing the rest of the system from addressing problems.

On the other hand, it's possible he figures change shouldn't happen if 41 out of 100 Senators are against it - which sounds great in theory, but I worry about dedicated opposition for opposition's sake.