I like your perspectives, Lela, always interesting.

I agree that a government should not be the main force in society, yet at the same time a government has a function that no one else can perform.

The level of how much government becomes an important question, and I believe the answer must be expressed in how much the people can control their government.

If we make an economy the horse, then we can declare that a government is involved in how much we control that horse, but also in what manner.

Let me NOT use the USA this time, but Italy and Sweden. You know I am much into voting systems, but both nations use proportional voting. Still, the outcomes are distinct with the Swedes happier than the Italians.

What happens is that the Italians have a House and a Senate, and both are capable of dropping the government. As a result, we see many short-lived governments in Italy.

The point of my comment is that Italians have less control over their government than the Swedes, exactly because they vote twice as much as the Swedes. The Swedes have one House and one House only.

The setup of the Italian governmental structure makes it a weaker instrument, and when the political instrument is weaker than we have some aspects in society that benefit stronger than in Sweden because they are directed in less effective manners.

And that explains why the Swedes are happier; they control their own lives more than the Italians can.

Giving the Italian government more say about society in Italy will actually not improve when the game remains the same. Short-lived governments (or various governmental parts battling other governmental parts) are not the best way to organize society. So, we desire them to be weaker because they are less qualified.

I am not undermining what you are writing, not at all, and I actually like what you write. But I miss a three-dimensional aspect that only comes out when we put the effectiveness of a government and the control voters have inside this picture you created.