It wasn't meant as SARCASM Ricky I'm sorry if you took it that way.
Again, your problem is that you're not a realist, and you're looking at the United States through the eyes of Canada. Perfectly natural since you're a Canadian citizen (or subject, whatever). But it gets a little annoying when you refuse to open your mind to alternate possibilities.
You have yourself admitted that many of the states have done better than the federal government has. But wait, the States of the United States of America are also PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS are they not? Clearly this blows away your theory that the problems inherent in the US federal system are the result of the presidential structure of government. They, too have presidential-style checks and balances.
I have often said myself that the US government would work better if it were "tweaked". The 50 state constitutions were written long after 1787 (the federal constitution was signed Sept. 17, 1787 and became "operative" in the meanest sense on Mar. 4, 1789). Therefore, they had ample time to look at the flaws that developed in the federal Constitution of 1787 and say, hey, this particular clause/whatever could work better IF we did [this] instead.
So clearly, your argument that the US Government is unworkable because it's a presidential system, and would work so much better if it were an Anglo-Canadian-style parliamentary one, is a flawed argument, full of half-truths, full of holes, and ignores a lot of the facts.
Also:
We do know that they share their governance structure.
(In reference to my question about "are there other factors at work"). May I point out that there are many, many variations on parliamentary government that produce different results. Some of these parliamentary governments have produced, and do produce, vastly different results. Iraq is a parliamentary democracy. So is Australia. So is Israel. So is Japan. Japan, contrary to popular belief, is rife with corruption and cronyism that I pray to God your country isn't. Israel is in the
Guiness Book of World Records---along with Belgium---for the parliamentary democracy which took the longest to form a coalition government following an election.
Oh, and I checked the
CIA World Factbook after looking at your list of shining examples of solid, parliamentary democracies that work better than ours. Costa Rica is a PRESIDENTIAL system. You yourself have pointed out the need for proving positions with sources rather than what you call "mental masturbation". So, before you clean up the jizz you just spewed all over your keyboard, check out the
Factbook entry on Costa Rica:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/geos/cs.html(I don't know if that provides a direct link to Costa Rica, just use the drop-down menu.)
And if you don't believe the CIA, here's another favorite source of yours, Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_RicaAs for Luxembourg, that's another bad example of parliamentary democracy. It's not a true "Westminster Model", as the monarchy is a lot stronger than most modern parliamentary democracies. The reason for this is that, along with the elected Chamber of Deputies, the "Council of State", appointed entirely by the monarch, "assists" the Chamber and Cabinet in the drafting of legislation. So that's not a good example either. (Though not as terrible an example of "modern" parliamentary democracy as Costa Rica, which isn't a parliamentary democracy at all).
But if you think Costa Rica's such a great government, thank you for proving my point.
NOW: after I asked you what the "other factors at work" were, you were kind enough (for once) to provide me with a list, rather than dodging the question. Your answer was:
a) stronger political parties,
b) corporatist interest organization,
c) tighter principal-agent relationships within the
various arms of the bureaucracy,
d) centralized (national-level) electoral accountability,
e) the capacity for flexible policymaking,
f) a more institutionalized political sphere, and
g) decisive leadership
After you respond to what I just wrote above, I will happily address the 7 points contained in your answer which you kindly styled A through G.
Thanks for at least not dodging the question this time!