The specific power being used here is the presidential veto, which is an important power of the president which is checked by the legislature being able to overrule a veto if they get enough votes.
In more calm times they could just pass legislation that would end the concept of government shut downs by funding at the previous rate in the event of a failure to agree to new funding levels.
Neither side wants that because it's a good political cudgel.
The democrats have introduced a bill to automatically pass CRs to prevent this. They also haven’t had enough votes to force such legislation through since 2010 - 15 years after the previous shutdown.
Its not nearly an equal cudgel. Generally the democrats want federal institutions to be in operation while Republicans want to disrupt and defund them. This correlates to 9 of 10 shutdowns (one in Bill Clintons term I'd consider him causing it) being propagated by Republicans on either side of negotiations, often with intent to defund some part of the government with the appropriations bills.
Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to blame Democrats - they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college, ending the possibility of shutdowns, or insuring the loophole that let a Republican congress delay voting on a supreme court nominee for a year was closed. They didn't bring any such bills or amendments to the floor in either house and never voted on any of it, so they can't even blame filibusters.
>they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college
They had absolutely no way to do that. That would require a constitutional amendment.
(There's another way around it where enough states agree to award electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, but that also requires action by the states).
Short of another convention, the amendment has to start in Congress. So they could have brought it up but chose not to.
The interstate compact, on the other hand, has enough signers that it is at least plausibly going to be successful. Though there will be lots of legal challenges if it ever gets used, it's not clear they're allowed to do such a thing.
There is a substantial difference on bringing an amendment to the floor for vote and letting all those who disagree with democracy vote against it and have that vote enshrined in permanent record for all to see versus not proposing it at all because "oh no it can never pass with those darn toot'n republicans!".
Its why the US Democratic party isn't seen as just objectively better than Republicans even in intellectual circles. They don't actually represent abject moralistic improvement or they would push such an agenda when they had power, even if it wasn't guaranteed to succeed. They should be pressing it even now, when they have only half of congress and don't hold the presidency, to paint their opponents as against policies most of the citizens agree with.
But they don't propose them because a majority are bought and paid for by the same interests that sponsor Republicans. Talk on campaign trails about fair elections or fixing flaws in democracy or the execution of the government are cheap. When they actually are in power and make no attempt on that front you see their true colors and who their true constituents are.
For all their flaws, at least Republicans constantly brought bills to repeal the ACA to a vote over and over for years under Obama. It was only once it actually had a chance of passing under Trump that they stopped doing it knowing it would self-sabotage their reelection campaigns if rednecks suddenly lost their healthcare in many states. But that doesn't justify the "blue team" never bringing the policies they campaign on to a vote even if they have no chance on passing, because that is the whole reason many people turn out to vote for them in the first place.
Its part of why Bernie is so popular. He has a track record of constantly pushing in committee single payer healthcare and similar policies like increased minimum wage. Even when he knows he has no chance of even reaching a vote with his legislation he still tries because its his job to do so and its what he owed his electorate for what he promised when they voted for him. Hes not alone in it, but hes absolutely in a minority of ethical congressmen willing to do so.
>For all their flaws, at least Republicans constantly brought bills to repeal the ACA to a vote over and over for years under Obama.
That's because they didn't care about actually passing anything because they knew they couldn't. Passing bills they knew Obama wouldn't sign didn't distract from what they were actually trying to accomplish.
When the Democrats controlled both houses, they were trying to pass the ACA, and spending time pushing show bills that have a 0% chance of passing wasn't what they wanted to focus on.
There's no evidence these kind of political stunts are effective, much less the only moral strategy as you are suggesting.
>Its why the US Democratic party isn't seen as just objectively better than Republicans even in intellectual circles
I don't know what "intellectual circles" you run in, but most "intellectuals" I know understand there is a clear difference between parties.
> Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to blame Democrats - they had the house and senate in 2008-2010 and chose not to go about abolishing the electoral college
A majority in the House and Senate isn't even enough to propose an amendment to do that, much less to actually do it.
In more calm times they could just pass legislation that would end the concept of government shut downs by funding at the previous rate in the event of a failure to agree to new funding levels.
Neither side wants that because it's a good political cudgel.