AO1: Has largely prevented one branch becoming too powerful over legislation The system of checks and balances means that compromise and consensus between the Congressional chambers needs to be reached to pass legislation AO3: and so the checks and balances can be effective in preventing one branch becoming too powerful over legislation. AO1: Allows for change that is based on broad support This is especially true in times of divided government, as broad support is needed in both chambers of Congress as well as the president for legislative change, and a super-majority for constitutional amendments AO3: and so the checks and balances can be effective in preventing a narrow minority dominating. AO1: Judicial review can prevent states/federal government going beyond their powers The Supreme Court can review decisions at state and federal level to ensure that legislation/programmes/executive orders are constitutional AO3: so demonstrating that the system of checks and balances is effective in ensuring the other branches do not go beyond their powers. AO1: Presidential appointments must be approved This can prevent an over-powerful (imperial) executive, as the president is not always guaranteed support of Congress, even if their own party dominates, when making appointments AO3: showing that the checks and balances are effective in limiting the power of the executive. AO1: Checks and balances ensure branches work together It is difficult to pass legislation without Congress and the president working together, as both must agree bills before they become law- and the Supreme Court has the ultimate ability to declare laws/executive orders unconstitutional AO3: and so the checks and balances are effective in ensuring the branches work together rather than one dominating the others.

AO1: Too many checks and balances This is particularly true in Congressional elections, where states cannot have term limits in place for members of Congress, and so some members of Congress are re-elected because of name familiarity and their electoral record AO3: Therefore the ability of new candidates to succeed is limited in states where there is an incumbent, consequently restricting the democratic nature of the US system, which is a more significant problem with the electoral system. AO1: Does not prevent states becoming too powerful This is because FPTP encourages the domination of the two major parties at all levels of local, state and national government AO3: Therefore third parties find it much more difficult to get elected at all levels of government, which is a significant problem with the electoral system. AO1: Checks and balances ineffective with united government The indirect nature of this system means that presidential candidates must campaign on an individual state basis rather than a national level, so may focus on winning certain key states to the detriment of other, smaller states AO3: Therefore this system gives disproportionate influence to certain states, and can under certain circumstances give undue power and influence to the electoral college delegates, which is a significant problem with the electoral system. AO1: Can also be ineffective with a narrowly divided House/Senate Without the ability to raise large sums of money from individual or organisations, candidates would find it impossible to campaign effectively in modern elections AO3: Therefore having limited campaign finance rules is a necessary evil in a modern society, which is a significant problem with the electoral system. AO1: SC ideology can be influenced by presidential appointments FPTP encourages the two-party system, and makes it much harder for minority parties or independents to achieve electoral success, especially on a federal level AO3: which makes it a more significant problem than campaign finance because it limits potential representation so much.