Come to think of it, AFAIK, not counting micronations like the Vatican and Monaco, there are only two countries in the world that still have the same constitution now as they had in 1789: The U.S. and the UK. And it’s questionable whether the UK really counts; George III was no figurehead, and the House of Lords really meant something then, and even America, where “democracy” was still an offensive word, had a wider voting franchise at the time.
The US Constitution has been updated since then… and the practice has changed even more.
Well, I’m afraid that’s a real sticking point. In a parliamentary system, the executive has no independent electoral mandate but is elected by the legislature. (For some reason, BTW, that only seems to work where “head of state” and “head of government” are separate positions; all republics which use parliamentary systems have, and seem to think they need, a powerless ceremonial president instead of a powerless ceremonial monarch – except in semi-presidential systems like France, where the president and prime minister both have real power, and how much each has or should have is sometimes a thorny problem.) That would be a way of avoiding gridlock, to be sure, at least as between Congress and the WH. But, some will say – even in this day and age, some Americans will say – that such gridlock is “a feature, not a bug.” One notion deeply and firmly embedded in American political culture is that anything but a separation-of-powers or presidential system is “tyranny.” See Federalist No, 47 – Madison got that idea from Montesquieu. Of course, both were still groping their way back then, all of this predated the full development of the parliamentary system in the UK and elsewhere.
But the fundamental government is the same as its been since the Constitution was ratified. There are stupid things (cough…electoral college…cough), but its held up remarkably well - getting us through a lot of change and a few crisis.
Yes, both the American and British constitutional systems have changed since 1789 - but, I think Britain’s has changed far more drastically. The FFs come to life again would at least recognize today’s American system of government, and I doubt Zombie Burke could honestly so recognize today’s British system, it would resemble Revolutionary France entirely too much in his eyes.
And also preventing change and causing crises. An America with a parliamentary system might well have done better. I recall something my Mom said in the early '70s after talking to some Brits: In the UK, a PM like Nixon would have resigned the same day something analogous to the Watergate scandal broke; not resigning under those circumstances would have been unthinkable. Which would have been for the best, yes? That’s what Brits call “responsible government.” It can produce monstrosities like Thatcher, but never for one moment longer than the people really want such monstrosities.
ME was followed by XP, a very good system.
D’oh…right…Vista was after XP.
You want Adam Sandler to explain the US political system?
O-kaaaayyy…
probably one of the reasons its a shtshow in a way that it is not in Europe is because as a bigger country, both populationwise and territorially, the law of large numbers says that a bigger amount will lead to more visible outliers and spread.
May all Dopers who get any least part of this hide their very existence from the rest of us every single remaining day of their lives, Amen, Selah, So Mote It Be, and Og Wills It.
The entire point of first mover disadvantage is that being ahead early on causes you to be behind later on. America was the first country to get credit cards and so a lot of the banking infrastructure around them is far more antiquated than other developed countries. This makes switching to later systems more expensive which is why American banks lag so far behind on relatively basic banking features.
Over the last 225 years or so the US has arguably been the most successful political system in the world. The only major country which is up there would be the UK.
Over the last 70 years the competition is more stiff but the US holds up pretty well. If you look at major European countries it’s not clear they have a superior system. Yes their healthcare systems work better and their murder rates are lower but the US has higher median income, lower unemployment, more free speech etc. Broadly speaking the US works about as well as the UK, France and Germany. Similarly Japan has its strengths but some serious shortcomings, its society is more closed, women have fewer opportunities etc.
People who think the US political system is terrible needs some serious perspective either from more historical reading or travel around the world to the many countries with truly terrible systems.
The world needs puter geeks too… 
And there is no guarantee that the murder rates would be lower or we’d get UHC with a parliamentary system. Nor that we’d get better results. We would have gotten rid of Nixon faster, but we’d also have gotten rid of Lincoln - and if we’d gotten rid of Lincoln, the country would have ended.
Democracy is messy. It’s only as good as the people make it.