Even the executive being separate from the head of the legislative branch is uncommon everywhere else.

The Presidential System (as distinct from the Prime Ministerial System) is common throughout Latin America and West Africa. Incidentally, it is also a governmental structure more vulnerable to coups and similar violent takeovers, as the President being in conflict with the Legislature often leads to these snap power grabs rather than more well-defined transitions of power after elections.

The US idea that the different branches would have checks and balances against each other was rendered pointless the moment the first political parties were developed.

Well, that's another big difference between the US system and systems in countries with more settled populations. Regional parties (the Scottish National Party being a large and distinct block of voters in the UK, the uMkhonto weSizwe as a Zulu nationalist group in South Africa, the Taiwan Solidarity Union as a Taiwanese nativist faction, or Otzma Yehudit in Israel which draws its doctrine from a single ultra-nationalist Rabbi Meir Kahane) can all exist in parliamentary systems in a way that a Mormon Party or a Texas Party or an African-American Party has failed to materialize in the United States.

The idea of checks and balances doesn't work when you're forced into coalition with one of the two dominant (heavily coastal) parties to have any sway in Congress or within the Presidential administration. And that goes beyond just "Voting for President". The Democrats don't nominate bureaucratic leaders (Sec of State, Attorney General, etc), the President does. This gives enormous influence to a singular individual who functions as both Party Leader and National Leader.

Compare this to Brazil or Germany or India or Israel, where power-sharing agreements between caucusing parties encourage the incoming Prime Minister to choose from the leaders of aligned party groups to fill cabinet positions. There's an immediate payoff to being the head of a small but influential partisan group under the PM system in a way that the American system doesn't have.

Now, do you want Anthony Blinken or Janet Yellen to have to hold a Congressional seat and act as Secretary of State or Secretary of Treasury? Idk. I've seen Brits scoff at this system as being its own kind of mess. But I can imagine a country in which a Yellen-equivalent head of the Liberals for Better Economic Policy Party has half a dozen seats and Blinken's Americans for NATO Party has half a dozen seats, and this is what Biden needs to be Prime Minister, so he appoints them to his cabinet as a trade-in for their support.

As long as they're able to mislead a bunch of stupid idiots to think that things that don't affect them, such as trans rights, they'll keep winning. Class solidarity is impossible when your fellow-poor believe that immigrants are the reason they're poor. Unfortunately, they've succeeded in keeping people stupid and uneducated.

What are you talking about, Bozos and Muskrat absolutely earned the 100 billion increase in their wealth over the last 10 years! They just Work Harder™ and are More Valuable™ than us!

/Wrist

Problem is that half the population is willing to keep the wealth class in power. And, ironically, many in that half of the population are among the poorest in the nation who believe the wealth will eventually trickle down to them.

The system he supported wasn't one where the House was capped at a limit causing the Electoral college to be skewed towards the minority.

Issues with the electoral college can be resolved by getting rid of the Reapportionment Act and moving towards Star or RCV voting. Both are significantly easier to do than passing an Amendment to get rid of the EC.

Any system that remains static for decades inevitably gets gamed by the powers that be. Sadly it seems we might be past the point of no return for this country…this election is everything

Yep, but you also need to get rid of FPTP.

Without that, gerrymendring won't work, and you'll actually be able to get more than two parties as realistic optiobs to vote for.

the inherent problem is you'd need some of the less populous states to voluntarily give their disproportionate power away. Even if they agree at the time that a popular vote is in their favor, that doesn't mean it will be forever. It's in their best interest to never give that power up.

US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and some other smaller countries.

It's a product of our fptp voting system, so any country that has this is going to trend towards two parties.

It's not just the electoral college that causes that issue though, first past the post is the culprit in Canada and our lack of precedent for minority alliances doesn't help.

This is such a lazy, circle jerk answer. And also patently wrong because both parties have wealthy interests, and one would love to get rid of the EC because it would give them more power.

The answer is much more obvious: it would require a constitutional amendment which would require a bunch of states and representatives voting to dilute their power and the power of the people they represent when it comes to choosing the POTUS.

As loathe as I am to use a BS argument...

Both Sides are wealthy. ;)

The article points out France, Finland, Argentina.

The Roman Republic.

No, really - the Tribal Assembly, the democratic legislature of the Republic, was divided by tribes, and tribes sorted according to geographic residence. Urban tribes got 4 votes, and rural tribes got 31 votes. Just like today!

[sobbing]

does it work like us presidential election tho? or are senators in France in the same "level" as electors in the US (i. e. there is no intermediate step between a voting person and elected one)?

Forgot to mention the genocide you guys are funding, the millions of other brown people killed by your military and the wealth extraction you’re doing in Africa and South America.