text: which arguement is more pursuasive and why? some analysts maintain that the us is poorly served by congress that is often beset by inaction and localism. supporters if the congress maintain taht the instition is a superior delberative and representive instituion. which arguement is the more persausive and why? i will take the "poorly served" side of the argument.  congress is a very inefficient institution for doing what it is designed to do: express the will of the people.  most of the people want capital punishment, legalization of pot, effective control of the borders, freedom to keep and bear arms, low taxes, small government, easy access to abortions, and a simple tax code.  most of all, people want laws that make sense and that don't constantly change back and forth.  but with congress set up on the two party system; and with members facing election every two years in the house and every six in the senate, each member is constantly in need of electioneering funds and must spend inordinate amounts of time campaigning.  worse, members are constantly pandering to both their own party's platform issues and to whatever the current fads in public policy are.  thus, they waste huge amounts of time and money over inconsequential issues like gay marriage, while spending less than sufficient time on serious issues like how to control the southern border and what to do about the millions of illigals who are already in the country.  but this is what you get when you have a democracy, "...of the people, by the people, and for the people...", as lincoln said.  and as churchill said, "democracy is the worst form of government known to man...except for all the rest."