A Presidential democracy has its flaws, but is also faster to react to any threats, as it only takes a single individual to take the final decision. Think of the following - if the US is attacked, would you have a slow bureaucracy, a hippie for a president or a ruthless psychopath, who knows how to achieve what he wants? Let's hope these are not the only choices :)
Another problem is that the current US presidential election was turned into a media show. At what point were the actual skills and knowledge of both potential candidates tested?
As far as checks and balances, the idea should be that government organizations fight for funding and power. If they coexist peacefully, then the system is flawed, I agree.
Double-edged sword I guess...interestingly, in the first several elections, I think the VP used to be the guy who was runner-up in the race for president...
Allowing virtually everyone (even stupid/lazy people, people w/conflicts-of-interest, etc.) to vote along w/having the govt. 'educate' the citizens, the only real universal requirement being you've made it to age 18, has guaranteed "appeal-to-the-lowest-common-denominator" politics.
An cool thought experiment would be to try to come up w/a better system.
Indeed. Democracy is sometimes lax when it comes to choosing well educated and balanced people. Maybe that's the thing - psychopaths are forcing themselves to be elected and normal people simply back off :)
One more thing about your comment, you mention needing a strong executive to react to threats, but how is it that the USA w/its 2 MUCH weaker neighbors to the North & South and vast oceans to the East & West has been pretty much constantly at war since its inception, esp. w/regards to managing to find its way into 2 major 20th-century European Wars while...Switzerland, which was smack-dab in the middle of the European Warzone, managed to stay out and has generally been at peace for 100's of years?
Since the War Of 1812 (which the USA actually started by foolishly declaring war on England), and esp. into the 20th century, what other nations have actually WANTED to fight the USA and why do so many Americans come off sounding so paranoid about "threats" even though the USA is pretty much unconquerable & is so overwhelmingly powerful than anyone else?
Switzerland is a very special case - at that time, they were holding most of the public and private funds (of political leaders) in Europe. No one would dare disrupt their own economy during war. Funnily enough, cryptocurrencies might be the end of Switzerland's neutrality and financial importance :)
The US has very few natural resources and taking over this country's land is relatively pointless. However, as the World's Police, as they are often referred to, they often meddle in other country's politics (and to get to their resources too, of course). This makes them a perfect target for hit and run tactics (terrorist attacks), which should, in theory, force the US population to vote against foreign intervention.
The reason why this hasn't happened yet, is because the US economy thrives on cheap fuels from other countries. As long as there's a conflict in the Arab world, fuel will be sold on the cheap, because local regimes and ISIS need cash for weapons - the more fuel they sell, the more weapons they will get.
The other major fuel producer, Russia, is not at all happy that Arab fuels are cheap - they have to lower their own prices as well, which makes their shaken economy even weaker. This is why they recently intervened in the conflict and support the pro-Russian government of Assad.
Now consider all of the above - the US has to fear Arab terrorists (who don't like the idea of a meddling World Police), Russians (who don't like America's plan for cheap fuels), as well as local political radicals, which act as terrorists as well. That's the price of having cheap fuel - living in fear.
Soon they will have another problem - their main export destination, Europe, will have a huge cheap workforce of Syrians, which means that the US may end up importing more than exporting - in effect making their economy weaker.