For those of you who don't know, I have had the privilege of performing my semester long internship in Governor Baker's Press Office. Working in the Statehouse has given me invaluable experience I'm not sure I could get anywhere else, but it also shed light on an issue that crosses every American's mind at some time or another. "If democracy is so great, why does nothing get passed?" "Why is Congress so gridlocked?"

The greatest strength of democracy is that it's slow. The greatest weakness of democracy is that it's slow. I'm not sure whether that's a quote or not, but I know I heard it somewhere. Perhaps I'm paraphrasing someone like G.K. Chesterson, but in any case, I've never heard a phrase that more accurately sums up democracy in so few words.

The checks and balances of our republic were designed for this specific purpose. A piece of legislation has to go through the proper steps and channels in order to become law. And once it becomes law, the Supreme Court can strike it down if it doesn’t' fit the standards laid out by the Constitution.

This system is designed to be foolproof so that immoral or unjust laws, like say the Stamp Act, which helped incite the American Revolution, could be passed quickly. It gives enough time for statesmen and citizens to examine a bill and decide whether they want it to become a law or not.

While this has been highly beneficial in the somewhat short period of time our country has existed, it's also equally obnoxious when trying to pass legislation that would help the country grow or modernize. Consider this: after 8 years, countless hours of revision, a Supreme Court ruling and a few Executive Orders, Obama-Care has finally been passed and implemented.

Many more now have health care than previously did. Hooray. But a huge part of this election has been the debate regarding Obama-Care. While many more Americans now have health care than previously did, the model is quite unsustainable. Co-pays are going up, deductibles are going up, and while the language brags that students leaving college can stay on their parents plan until they're 26, that's only the case if your parents can afford to keep you on their plan until your 26.

But this article isn't about Obama-care and I'm not going to get embroiled in an argument on whether it is or is not a good system. The point I'm trying to make is, it took so long for the bill to finally be passed that here we are, 8 years later, with hardly anything to show for it.

Hillary is intent on keeping it intact and fixing it. (Good luck with a Republican Congress), and Trump is intent on dismantling it, (again good luck with a Republican Congress whose Speaker you've been lambasting for the last several days). The problem is, if it took 8 years to pass the legislation, how long do you think it will take to repeal it? 8 more years? Less? More?

See no one knows. And while the folks out in Washington try to figure it out with filibusters and half rational arguments, the everyday average American suffers because of it. Students who want to go Pre-Med don't know if it will even be worth it in the long run. Middle class families have to pay more out of pocket for care. And unless some serious tweaks are made soon, Obama's legacy will end up like the last "noble experiment" we tried. (Yes I'm looking at you Prohibition.)

Democracy is great in theory because it allows "everyone" to have a say in how the country is run. But democracy only works well on a small scale. The Athenians invented democracy way back in 430 A.D. right? And it worked great for them other than the fact that they voted to murder Socrates and lost the Peloponnesian War because they couldn't make a damned decision.

The difference between the U.S. and Athens is the former is a federalized collection of states, whereas the latter was a city-state. Massachusetts is pretty comparable to Athens in terms of size, population and revenue, and democracy on the state level seems to work pretty well. At least from what I can see from my my decently comfortable intern chair.

Legislation gets passed and struck down relatively quickly. If there is a problem, it's usually addressed and dealt with. Take the T for example. It's still not perfect, but it's come a long way in just a year. Take the opioid bill, the transgender bill, the MBTA-Uber-Lyft partnership bill that helps the disabled get from point A to point B with relative ease.

These were all responses to problems that were dealt with relatively quickly. How? Two reasons: compromise, and a budget.

Knowing which battles to pick is essential in an effective democracy and Charlie Baker is someone who knows exactly what battles he wants to pick. He's usually a pretty amiable and flexible guy, but knows when to stand firm on an issue that he truly believes in.

Some news outlets and private citizens just don't really understand this. They'll lambaste Baker as "Tall Deval", a Republican who went back on his party by signing things like the transgender bill. Some castigate the almost entirely Democratic Senate for not checking his power when he tries to fix a problem he sees like when he signed the Executive Order to reach a certain emissions goal.

What these people fail to see is that things are getting done, and that is a good thing no matter how you slice it. If a bill gets passed quickly to address a problem, and it doesn’t alleviate the problem, it can just as easily be repealed by a petition or through the legislature. But whether or not the legislature is effective, at least they are doing something,which is more than can be said for Washington.

By doing something, experts and average joes alike can see what it accomplishes and go from there. At the federal level, there is a sharp divide between the two parties that has grown steadily deeper during this past election. There may even be an unofficial third party now that Speaker Ryan and over 100 prominent Republican statesmen have refused to endorse Donald Trump.

Nothing is getting done. Nothing is getting passed. Why? Because they're all at each other's throats. There is less than zero respect for someone who holds a different opinion in Congress and in the federal legislature. I heard Trump say the other day that "…if she becomes President, I believe America as we know it will never be the same." And Hillary has been running these ads that say something along the lines of "Trump likes war and is a bully. Do you really want this man with access to nuclear launch codes?"

See while Democrats and Republicans have fundamental differences, these differences of opinion shouldn't stop them from having a healthy debate so a conclusion can be reached. In federal politics, there is no conclusion trying to be reached. There is no discussion of the issues, there is no dialogue, there is no debate. And without a debate, there can be no solution.

See on Beacon Hill there has to be compromise because there is a budget. Hate to break it to you, but on the federal level, there is no budget. Well there is, but going "over budget" happens every single year. That's why we go further into debt every single year. Nothing is ever resolved because Republicans want to "make America great again", (I'm not exactly sure what that means but it sounds suspiciously like "make American white again"), and Democrats just want to throw money at problems and hope it fixes itself. Just subsidize this, bail out that. Just print more money, China will buy up all our debt.

And the Fed let's them do it because the world economy runs on our debt. Because we are the economic and militaristic hegemon, we basically have a giant credit card that we can swipe every year because the other option is for countries to abandon the dollar and that's just not practical for them to do at the present time.

See in state government it's different. States get x amount of money every year through tax revenue and so on. I don't even pretend to be good at math so I'm not even going to try to explain it but they have a budget, and if they go over budget, they can't just print more money. States can actually go bankrupt, though it hasn't happened since Arkansas in 1933.

With this in mind, state legislatures have to recognize problems, and try to solve them using a finite amount of resources. Consider this. Have you ever had a whole laundry list of things to do? Who am I kidding, of course you have. And how many of you had a whole day to do them, but instead spent it waffling around playing video games, scrolling through Instagram, or otherwise being an deplorable waste of space? That sentence describes me whenever I'm not in a structured environment.

However, when I know I have work at 4 and have to do x, y and z before then, suddenly, miraculously, it all gets done by 1:30 and I have hours before I even have to get ready for work.

The same is true with government. If you have a seemingly infinite amount of resources, compromise doesn’t seem to make much sense. Why would you give the Republicans what they want if it contradicts both your views and interests and vice versa? Your still getting your six figure salary every year, why do you care if this bill gets filibustered and dragged along through a seemingly endless series of appeals, veto's, and revisions? Answer: you don't.

In state government, at least our state, it's different. We live in the bluest of blue states, almost as blue as California. I mean we were the first to legalize same sex marriage for Christ sake. Yet we have a Republican governor who has the third highest approval ratings in the country. Why? Because he can get things done. He's very easy to work with and realizes the importance of win-win negotiation.

If you can come up with a plan in which everyone wins, or at least everyone has a piece that satisfies their demands, then who has a chance to be unhappy? Answer: the few people who tweet at the Governor about the MBTA every single day, but that's another, very funny story.

So I guess in conclusion, Democracy tends to work well on a small scale due to the need to compromise. On a federal level there is no such need and the process has become so adversarial, it's really gotten to the point where it's quite sad.

I have a friend I talk politics with and we tend to be at opposing ends of the spectrum. But when one of us say's something the other simply can’t agree with, we'll just shake our head and smile. Maybe make some offhand joke and that's that. But nowadays it's almost downright dangerous to talk politics with someone you don't know. You literally have to walk on egg shells.

One of my professors once told me that religion, politics and sex are the three prongs on which a bar stool sits. If you can’t talk about one of those while having a beer, you shouldn't be in the pub. Well it appears our country needs to either figure it out, or get out the pub.