[ColoradoTree]

"And please folks, I am aware that there was political intrigue and strife among the founders.  I know they played dirty in their ways too.  But they managed to create a document that guided the formation and emergence of the greatest nation in history (unbelievably, I anticipate pushback about that assertion).  I am cautious about being too cavalier in dismissing its provisions as out of date.  It is amendable and has been amended, 27 times including the 10 that comprise the Bill of Rights, right?  But it's really, really hard.  It should be hard.  But it would be better to make such changes through the legislature, and it would be preferable to avoid to the greatest extent possible making such significant changes via judicial interpretations."

+1 Well said.

I dont gloss over the Constitutions important flaws regarding the treatment of women and African Americans, but it provided a mechanism for futre generations to remedy those flaws.

That said, if there are other large diverse countries that people think have better political structures, I'd be interested in learning who and why.

I'm not necessarily saying that another country has a better political structure, but in my mind, the principal failure of our tripartite government is the lack of accountability at the federal level (and at the state level as well, because states used the same federal structure of three separate branches for their own governments).  In a parliamentary system, if the government enacts a policy that you oppose, or fails to address problems you think need addressing, then the answer is simple: vote for a different party next time, and see whether going in a different direction solves your concerns.  But with our system, when we have a Republican Congress and a Democratic President and the government fails to address problems you think need addressing, who does one hold accountable when each side points to the other as the guilty party?  If you're a partisan, you blame the other side, but if you're somewhat independent or moderate, it's extremely difficult to parse out just who is to blame for a particular impasse.  It requires the average voter to study a particular policy (or history of negotiations, or whatever it is) in depth to determine who they think is pursuing a compromise in good faith and who is stonewalling, and we often view those things through ideological lenses.  That is a big, big ask we make of our voters--who often throw up their hands and blame both sides, which doesn't help--whereas parliamentary systems make accountability much easier, since it's a necessary feature of that system.  So while voters of both parties decry gridlock and Congress in general, they also generally think their own Member of Congress is a good guy/lady who does a good job, so nothing really changes and with each new election, each incumbent feels emboldened to keep acting the same way.  Lather, rinse, repeat. 

So, accountability is the main thing we see in other governments that I wish we had more of here.  I also am fond of multiparty, parliamentary systems for two main reasons: (1) they're more representative in the sense that the greater the number of parties, the more likely one exists that fits your own beliefs pretty well, rather than compromising on certain positions to fit in one of our two major parties; and (2) by their very nature, they often require significant compromise to even form a government.  Take Germany, for example.  If a third of the country supports the center-right CDU/CSU, a third of the country supports the center-left SDP, and a third of the country is split between the Greens, the free-market FDP, the far-left Linke/PDS, no one party commands a majority of support, so there has to be some compromise on who will join the government. If the smaller parties won't add up to a majority with one of the larger parties (the more common route, historically), you'll even see the two biggest parties form a so-called Grand Coalition where they negotiate over what policy proposals the joint government will pursue, which party will head which ministries, and so on, leading to a fairly centrist government.  You also don't face the same concerns about "throwing away your vote" if you generally support one of the bigger parties but feels it lacks sufficient focus on an area you care about.  So, if you're an environmentalist, you can freely vote for the Greens without worrying that you're endangering the prospect of a center-left government, since the SPD would be happy to be a senior government partner with the Greens, resulting in a more environmentalist center-left government than the SPD would have by itself.  Same thing if you are more of a free-market libertarian who wants a conservative government but with greater emphasis on libertarian ideals: vote for the FDP, who is a common coalition partner with the CDU/CSU.  The same division of opinions exist as they do in our country, but whereas we are sometimes left with one party in control of the Legislative branch and the other in control of the Executive, in systems such as Germany's, those two parties are forced to restrain their more ideological impulses to work together and govern together, or else a government won't exist and new elections will be called.  In both systems, compromise is important, but in theirs, it's required (unless, of course, one party wins an absolute majority of seats). 

Again, not saying that's a better system than ours.  I'm just saying there are nice features in democracies across the globe, and it doesn't demean our Constitution to admire those features and wonder whether we can find ways to incorporate them into our own system.

[ColoradoTree]

"And please folks, I am aware that there was political intrigue and strife among the founders.  I know they played dirty in their ways too.  But they managed to create a document that guided the formation and emergence of the greatest nation in history (unbelievably, I anticipate pushback about that assertion).  I am cautious about being too cavalier in dismissing its provisions as out of date.  It is amendable and has been amended, 27 times including the 10 that comprise the Bill of Rights, right?  But it's really, really hard.  It should be hard.  But it would be better to make such changes through the legislature, and it would be preferable to avoid to the greatest extent possible making such significant changes via judicial interpretations."

+1 Well said.

I dont gloss over the Constitutions important flaws regarding the treatment of women and African Americans, but it provided a mechanism for futre generations to remedy those flaws.

That said, if there are other large diverse countries that people think have better political structures, I'd be interested in learning who and why.

I'm not necessarily saying that another country has a better political structure, but in my mind, the principal failure of our tripartite government is the lack of accountability at the federal level (and at the state level as well, because states used the same federal structure of three separate branches for their own governments).  In a parliamentary system, if the government enacts a policy that you oppose, or fails to address problems you think need addressing, then the answer is simple: vote for a different party next time, and see whether going in a different direction solves your concerns.  But with our system, when we have a Republican Congress and a Democratic President and the government fails to address problems you think need addressing, who does one hold accountable when each side points to the other as the guilty party?  If you're a partisan, you blame the other side, but if you're somewhat independent or moderate, it's extremely difficult to parse out just who is to blame for a particular impasse.  It requires the average voter to study a particular policy (or history of negotiations, or whatever it is) in depth to determine who they think is pursuing a compromise in good faith and who is stonewalling, and we often view those things through ideological lenses.  That is a big, big ask we make of our voters--who often throw up their hands and blame both sides, which doesn't help--whereas parliamentary systems make accountability much easier, since it's a necessary feature of that system.  So while voters of both parties decry gridlock and Congress in general, they also generally think their own Member of Congress is a good guy/lady who does a good job, so nothing really changes and with each new election, each incumbent feels emboldened to keep acting the same way.  Lather, rinse, repeat. 

So, accountability is the main thing we see in other governments that I wish we had more of here.  I also am fond of multiparty, parliamentary systems for two main reasons: (1) they're more representative in the sense that the greater the number of parties, the more likely one exists that fits your own beliefs pretty well, rather than compromising on certain positions to fit in one of our two major parties; and (2) by their very nature, they often require significant compromise to even form a government.  Take Germany, for example.  If a third of the country supports the center-right CDU/CSU, a third of the country supports the center-left SDP, and a third of the country is split between the Greens, the free-market FDP, the far-left Linke/PDS, no one party commands a majority of support, so there has to be some compromise on who will join the government. If the smaller parties won't add up to a majority with one of the larger parties (the more common route, historically), you'll even see the two biggest parties form a so-called Grand Coalition where they negotiate over what policy proposals the joint government will pursue, which party will head which ministries, and so on, leading to a fairly centrist government.  You also don't face the same concerns about "throwing away your vote" if you generally support one of the bigger parties but feels it lacks sufficient focus on an area you care about.  So, if you're an environmentalist, you can freely vote for the Greens without worrying that you're endangering the prospect of a center-left government, since the SPD would be happy to be a senior government partner with the Greens, resulting in a more environmentalist center-left government than the SPD would have by itself.  Same thing if you are more of a free-market libertarian who wants a conservative government but with greater emphasis on libertarian ideals: vote for the FDP, who is a common coalition partner with the CDU/CSU.  The same division of opinions exist as they do in our country, but whereas we are sometimes left with one party in control of the Legislative branch and the other in control of the Executive, in systems such as Germany's, those two parties are forced to restrain their more ideological impulses to work together and govern together, or else a government won't exist and new elections will be called.  In both systems, compromise is important, but in theirs, it's required (unless, of course, one party wins an absolute majority of seats). 

Again, not saying that's a better system than ours.  I'm just saying there are nice features in democracies across the globe, and it doesn't demean our Constitution to admire those features and wonder whether we can find ways to incorporate them into our own system.