The USA's Fedederal vetocracy gauntlet is composed of Senate, POTUS, and SCOTUS.

I'm very curious about comparisions between governing systems. But am noob, so haven't gotten very far.

I too value -- without evidence pro or con -- some balance between fast, slow, and middling.

Senate was designed to counter balance the House. I'm very skeptical of its benefit; both in principle and in practice.

Our State's patchwork of arrangements is probably informative, in the small. Somehow rank States by legislative output, (their) Supreme Court's actions, lag time in pivoting to adopt norms (marriage equality), or some such.

There's a Harvard researcher (on mobile, can find cites later if needed) who concluded that most all national (democratic) govts eventually adopted norms. On the time span of decades and generations. Regardless of their system. Strongly suggesting that public pressure and need to maintain legitimacy do matter.

I've since wondered if we're just too impatient. I certainly am. Or if that thesis is even true. For example, the USA's Jim Crow era endured for 100+ years. And still remains contested.

Would appreciate any insights any has to share.