[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I linked a study some time back done by the World Bank about degree of corruption vs type of government. Parliamentary governments, with far less in the way of separation of powers, and specifically the Westminster system, came out ahead of any other system.

I think part of the reason is that almost all countries with the Westminster system derived great benefit from the example of British rule. The British just know how to run things, and most countries they've touched have become civilized and extremely stable.

I think the presidential system is flawed. It invests too much power in an individual while giving them too little accountability. When the lawmakers and the executive form the same unit, one set of hands guides the entire policy of the nation, and the buck stops entirely with them. Such a system seems to encourage self restraint rather than excesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true. And the fact that we have winner take all leads to a 2-party system -- you don't have separation of powers when everyone comes from the majority parties and there is zero representation from other views. Many Euro countries have as many as 20 viable parties ... we have an entrenched power system catering to just two views which portend to be polar but are not. Our system is broke -- the Constitution isn't the fix, it is part of the very problem.