The British political system has, until recently, been based on the idea of two houses that are independent of each other, in the way in which they are composed, and in the people from which they are composed. This, in principle, should have been extremely stable, as the excesses and bias of one group would automatically be filtered out by another. To be effective, the groups would need to cooperate, rather than compete.
And, to an extent, this actually worked. The British political system has not required radical overhaul in over three hundred years, making it one of the most stable systems ever devised.
However, it was never particularly effective. Although one house had no direct control over the other, "career politicians", inherited life-long power, and the inevitable corruption over time, resulted in a system that was really run much more by the "Civil Service" than by the officials.
The "Civil Service" is a shadowy, surreal organization which really holds power in Britain. The politicians "make decisions", but the Civil Service is the body that actually implements them. In its own way, with its own interpretations. It is accountable to nobody but itself. It is a "politically-neutral" corporation, making Britain one of the oldest Corporate States in the world.
The increasing tension, the lust for power & control, the fevered gambits, and the natural hostility between all three groups, is causing this system to collapse. It's no longer stable.
But is any other existing political system any better? America has the Constitution, a piece of paper honored more by rote memorization than by actual practice. Constitutional "rights" apply only to those groups the Government of the day wants them to, which is why "foreigners" are now being targetted. A few years back, it was Native Americans. Tomorrow, it might be Democrats. Who knows? Once you can exclude any group from "we, the people", you can exclude ANY group, and the more often you do that, the easier it'll get. People'll get used to the idea of a Constitution for the "elect few", rather than for all.
(For those who claim the Constitution is only intended for Americans, I'd argue that "all people are created equal" doesn't really leave much room for debate. Either everyone is equal, in the eyes of the US constitution, or some are more equal than others.)
So, we have a bunch of flawed systems. That happens. But what, in reality, can be put in their place, should they collapse? (Which they will, it's just a matter of time. Nothing made by humans will last forever. Things can last a long time, but nothing is eternal.)
Well, the system I've often thought MIGHT be a workable substitute would be to take the best of both worlds. Have a Constitutionally-ruled House, and an unelected House (as per the UK system), but have the unelected House based on a jury system, so that it contains real representitives, rather than hereditary peers.
Why would this be any better? Well, pure Democracy is somewhat untennable, in a country the size of America. However, pure democracy avoids one thing that a Republic cannot - corruption via powerful lobbying groups. Which we're seeing a lot of, in the news, recently. (You can bribe individuals, but it's harder to sway an otherwise unconnected body of people.)
A jury system, whereby 600 people from across the nation are picked entirely at random to essentially try the various bills and pieces of legislation, as though they were defendents in a legal case, would create a virtually uncorruptible body, specifically designed to limit and impede corruption throughout the Halls of Power.
Uncorruptible? Sure! Bribing 600 people, in and of itself, is not beyond most corrupt politicians or corporations, but only when you know who they are. Juries are anonymous and random, so you can't ensure that easily-bought people are present. Also, a jury only tries one case. Once it's over, you pick a fresh jury and go through the procedure again. That way, this House would serve for one bill. Not four years, two years, or any other length of time. One bill, and that's it. No "career politicians", no "experienced members", just 600 people listening to the arguments of two sides, for one specific thing.
"But, they won't know the background! Or the bigger picture!" If it's relevent, it'd be up to the defence to bring those details up. If it's not, then the jury isn't confounded by irrelevent details and side-issues.
"But... 'Career Politicians' know about politics! The average person doesn't!" Politics isn't the issue, with this kind of system. That's for the Representitives and the Senate to debate. This third House would be to test the validity of the arguments, once the political issues are already resolved. They don't NEED to know about politics, they just need to know if side A or side B has the more valid argument.
"It would be too difficult to do!" Oh, everything's too difficult to do. Until it's done, and then everyone takes it for granted. Tough airport security was "too tough to do", until it was introduced. Now, virtually nobody would do without it.
(Fill in own objection here) Objections are easy to come by. Raise any issue, and I'm sure a million people can find objections. The point is not whether you can find some way to slam an idea, but whether there are any other ideas that are any better. No idea is perfect, and it's by debate that we sift the wheat from the chaff. But debate requires REAL input from more than one side, or it ceases to be a debate. Those who have seen the Monty Python sketch on "Arguments" will understand what I'm saying here. It's not an argument to flatly contradict. You have to give a meaningful counter-view, too.
In the end, America was built on people debating on how the system should function. It can only continue to be built, if people continue that debate. There are only two ways you can go. Forwards or backwards. If you're not moving, you're still going backwards.
The world's problems won't be solved on K5 (though I think K5 is probably more suitable a place than the UN, sometimes), but nothing gets solved if nobody does anything, anywhere. Which is exactly why the UK is falling apart, and the US is shedding it's Constitution faster than a snake on speed.