Britain ran a global empire using this model, why wouldn't it work for the US?
Maybe read up on how it works before rejecting it out of hand?
Britain has a bicameral parliament, with the leader of the majority of the lower house forming the executive, but the head of state retains the constitutional ability to dissolve parliament and order new elections if the current government is unable to function.
Having an apolitical head of state might be worth looking into.
> Britain ran a global empire using this model, why wouldn't it work for the US?
The “global empire” was systematically disenfranchised under that model, which is a big reason why it broke up, and that was specifically called out by the US when it left.
I mean, there are arguably good examples of parliamentary democracy working at significant scale in a state, but the UK’s government at home while the empire was managed through a bunch of other systems is very much not one of them.
> What works for a country the size of a New York neighbourhood doesn't work for a country the size of a continent.
While I personally think the problem with the US system is much more in lack of proportionality in the electoral system used for the legislature , but, even so, I can recognize thet parliamentary government doesn't only work at small scales.
Maybe read up on how it works before rejecting it out of hand?
Britain has a bicameral parliament, with the leader of the majority of the lower house forming the executive, but the head of state retains the constitutional ability to dissolve parliament and order new elections if the current government is unable to function.
Having an apolitical head of state might be worth looking into.