I haven't got the energy to get into the "ideal system of government" question here, but I want to note that a key issue in the US is that the "checks and balances" of the current system are quite strongly predicated on various actors, particularly those in Congress being more beholden to local forces than national parties.

Thanks to changes in the social/technological/media/money-in-politics landscape, that assumption is becoming untrue.

As such, the US system is sliding towards becoming more and more parliamentary anyway. That in itself might not be cause for concern per se (the French system is quite a hybrid, for example) BUT the slide towards a parliamentary level of party power in the US poses critical challenges for the "checks and balances" system and that does seem an important and worrying issue.

I am not convinced there is a perfect system of government. Not only do all systems seem to have flaws, but each geenration of politician seems to find a new work-around to subvert the system, so that you only need a few decades before the accumulation of little corruptions leads to something that is entirely dysfuntional as a representative system for the popular will of the people.

Constitutions are all very well, but they can be ignored (eg soviet union) or subjected to judicial assault until the idea of democratic representation becomes a sham (eg US). Far as I can see, all of the european systems have been around for so long that they all have developed systemic flaws. The British government is a farce as a deliberative, legislative or oversight body. The ability to manage change within british society has been entirely abdicated. I'm sure those in the know can make similar complaints about their local systems.

No. what you need is the cceptance that every 50 years there will be a complete non-political examination and appraisal of the aims and methodologies of the system. which will never happen.

keep to the Fen Causeway

Have you cross-posted this (minus the last line) on Daily Kos?

I think the US needs Proportional Representation more than a Parliamentary Government. In fact, realising that both the UK and France have first-past-the-post electoral system goes a long way towards explaining a lot of the current dysfunction in their political systems. France royally screwed itself up, too, by making the Presidential election cycle coincide with the Parliamentary cycle.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

Like you, I don't think a parliamentary system would make much difference. It would still be the same people being elected. And whether they're in the opposition or in the majority, they don't seem to be able - or willing - to accomplish much.
Comedian Lewis Black once said that "the Democrats is a party of no ideas, and the Republicans is a party of bad ideas!"

In Finland^[1] we have a semi-presidential system, somewhat akin to France, and the power of the presidency is a constant source of debate. Its power has been significantly reduced in recent years, but there are still frequent clashes of jurisdiction between the parliamentary government and the president, particularly in foreign policy, which is the primary field of concern for the president.
(Of course, Finland has proportional representation, with no party even daring to dream winning 30% of the seats, so coalition governments and consensus are a must.)

^[1] Yes, I have an amazing ability to reduce absolutely everything to Finnish analogies.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

I think if there were more than just first past the post elections where pluralities can win, you are correct, I think, to assert that the two current parties are likely to remain in the present duopoly.

However, institute another level of reform, like some form of irv, or multiple round elections designed to maximum (though not necessarily ensure) 50+% victors, or ultimately, some form of representative proporationality, and this would change quite quickly.

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill