Even though Congress is supposed to be the pre-eminent democratic and representative institution in our society, it seems that Congress has neglected to live up to these explanations. Howard Laski has observed that Congress not only neglects this criteria, but was designed in way to maximize incoherence and irresponsibility. Samuel Huntington also offers his view of Congress as a troubled institution because of its inability to modernize itself with the existence of affiliation, structure and functions. By examining the arguments of Laski and Huntington and providing a clear assessment of each, I hope to answer the question pertaining to Congress’s insufficient role as a democratic and representative institution. I hope to further support this by incorporating the ideas of Morris Fiorina and Dan Clawson, and finally suggesting some changes that may help Congress become the ideal democratic institution that it was thought to have been.
             Howard Laski stressed that congress is both incoherent and irresponsible. He showed this by providing a comparison of the United States Government and the British Parliament. Laski shows that the British system is one in which the Prime Minister is the head of the majority party and head of legislature. This makes the parties within Great Britain more disciplined and programmatic. When looking at the United States government, Laski points out that within this system the President does not always have a majority within all aspects of the institution. This exists because of the checks and balances system that was created under the constitution, and restricts the amount of party discipline and how programmatic they will be. Laski offers up an idea that suggests that a more democratic state is one that is both responsible and coherent. The British system, being that they are extremely programmatic and has strong party discipline, is the more democratic out of the two. The!
             United Stat...