when government is ineffective, it's easy to blame the people in power
but, it's usually more correct to blame the process
particularly when it seems just as ineffective no matter who is in power
analogy: in software, if a bug makes it to production, you rarely blame an individual - unless they acted maliciously - you usually reflect on what's wrong in the processes of the team that allowed it to happen
ie. "5 Whys"
"the process" for government being the constitution (in the general term, as in, the structure of government, how it is formed, how it operates - not just the constitutional document)
the "problem" includes procedural rules that allow for gerrymandering or filibuster
but, also structural rules like first-past-the-post elections (leading to 2 party, polarized, identity politics), or even more fundamentally, elections vs sortition (elections maintaining plutarchy - rule by wealthy and elite)
...and incentives created by these processes (short-term re-election focused, fundraising-focused, etc.)
(related thoughts:)
is it ineffective, or just ineffective from your perspective
(perhaps there are those who are pleased with how things are)
is an ineffective government better than an effective-but-not-the-way-you-want government?
given enough time, any subtle "flaws" (levers for power) in a governance system will be found and exercised
"stuck in a stand-off" (ex. filibuster) may be a better "stable point" than "runaway power"