If some of the protections like 2/3 or 3/4 majorities rather than a simple majority were kept in place, think how different it would all be. I've chaired ASME subgroups writing standards, and those required consensus for passage by the subgroup writing the standard, and then again for approval/adoption at the levels above. You can't have one person or faction dictating, and there's a lot of work to get people with differing views to agreement. Engineers are different from congress though; we deal with fact and not money. If you deal with money, the "compromise" can be that everybody gets to add a piece of pork rather than weeding out the chaff.
In the end the only way to make congress work is get rid of simple majorities and require that any legislation be restricted to one thing ... no adders of any kind to entice others to vote. Straight up or down on the merits of the one item - have to limit the length of the legislation and require it be written unambiguously in plain, concise, standard English ... no BS legalese. "Should" and "shall" and "may" and "will" to delineate the difference between an absolute requirement and discretion. Also have to sever the BS agreements like "I'll vote for your bridge if you'll support my whatever" - that's bribery and collusion; and the reason for insisting "one bill - one item" in the first place. Horse trading isn't compromise toward reasonable, workable legislation; it's why congress is corrupt and we as a country are in debt and completely screwed.