> Our country is not suited to monarchy and we rightly rejected it as then constituted. <
I kinda like the way many European governments are set up. There is a head of state - a president - who has powers much like a monarch does. But the president dare not use those powers except in dire circumstances.
Then there’s a prime minister who runs the government on a day-to-day basis. But the prime minister cannot just go crazy as the president (theoretically) keeps him in check.
If I ever go back in time, I’m going to mention this to Ben Franklin.
Yes, the Founders’ chief and perhaps blind spot was failing to imagine Congress would give its powers away to the Executive Branch with both hands. Otherwise, the Founders did astonishingly well.
The Prime Minister is selected by the majority party or by a coalition of parties. If we had it here Pelosi would be PM. (Assuming the House functioned as the Commons and the Senate functioned as the Lords) Our system does a better job of trying to draw support from the people, then does their system.
Personally, I think we should go back to do as the Founding Father’s wanted. The state legislators after their election pick the electors and they select the President. Maybe from a list of candidates that campaigned nationally! We are a federation of states. This would have as the Founders intended the states picking the leader. The people would have weighed in indirectly through the legislature.
They still have kings and queens in Spain, Norway, Denmark, and Holland to name a few. Who knows, maybe a descendant of the last tsar is the men’s room attendant at the Louvre.