In France you have a strong president that combines the role of a monarch and prime minister, but the role of "constitutional gatekeeper" is shared by the Constitutional Council, Supreme Court and Administrative Court. The latter three are actually entities that use their power.

The idea of having two houses of parliament is common in most large countries, and it is also common for those houses to be segregated from the executive (EU etc...).

The US is a political and cultural mess, but a lot of those issues aren't inherently due to the political system involved.

What's your point? That you disapprove of the concept of separation of powers? That you disapprove of the idea of the executive president?

Neither of these are exactly unusual or extreme positions w.r.t systems of government.

Or is this just a whine about the U.S.?

It's just that when a majority of the American people want certain changes in policy, they are not able to get them passed even though the country is a democracy.

The parent comment just gave reasons for that (among other things).

The United States is not, strictly speaking, a democracy. The people don't make decisions. They elect people who make decisions, thus it is a republic.

I hear a lot of people in technical (predominantly US) forums make this distinction. Where does the perception that Republic or democracy are conflicting concepts come from?

Republic and democracy are orthogonal concepts. A republic is a form of government where the head of state is elected. So it is in conflict with a monarchy, where the head of state is passed by inheritance. In democracies decisions are made by the people through various means, like elections. In fact many (most?) republics are democracies, where the head of state is elected by the people. The US is one of them, the "the original" one Athens was as well.

However there are republics where the head of state is e.g. elected by a clique of oligarchs or the military. They are undemocratic republics.

A representative democracy is still a democracy.

Don’t forget that the President and Senate are both elected on the basis of land, rather than population. And the presidential allotment is winner-takes-all for most of those land areas. Definitely doesn’t disenfranchise large population centers, it’s fine.

The patches to the constitution aren't as deeply thought out as the original one. The Senate wasn't even an elected institution until 100 years ago, whether that is better or worse than an appointed system is mostly a false dilemma as there are more than two options. Pointing out that our constitution isn't really geared for the current process is a first step of getting more inspiration on how it could function.

When you patch one aspect it throws the other aspects out of whack.

"Basis of land"? LOL. Are you referring to the 50 individual state governments that make up the United States of America? Most Europeans don't know this, but the first government in the world to ban slavery was the U.S (Vermont). The US isn't one homogeneous zone. There are 50 individual governments that write their own legislation, have their own taxation systems and have military's (state guards). California is free to create their abortion access legislation as is Texas. Many states in the US legalized Weed despite the fact that the federal government has some bizarre policy in place (which isn't constitutional).

I hate to burst your bubble but Pope Zachary ended slavery in Rome in the 740s, banning the slave trade and manumitting all slaves already present by purchase of the church & state.

I think they were making a jab at the Electoral College system in USA.

> a product that would taste good on breakfast cereal but is also an effective roof insulation

I'm curious- do you have something particular in mind?

This kind of a take is ready for flames.