If your government abuses their authority badly enough, of course you would consider overturning it. My point is that the authority is your government's to exercise and has been. The authority of the US government starts from its citizens. As a practical matter it might make no difference. The term you used was not accurate.
As for your opinion of our system. It tends to illustrate how the best government governs least. All those great things our society achieved was done more by individual effort than a government effort/program.
I don't believe our society is any more racist than yours. Both our nations have had issues treating racial/cultural minorities poorly. Not proud moments for sure. Yet, that sort of bigotry has declined in the US. Our passionate disagreements tend to fall on idiological lines. There are still bigots of all races here. Google "the knockouts game" or "polar bear hunting". I doubt that any society of humans will be free of all bigotry.
Regarding homicides here. Namelessfly is right on. Many of those people commiting those crimes are from generational welfare receiving
parents. Our welfare system has done far more harm than good.
Daryl wrote:I admit that some time ago I was ignorant regarding the US political system, however over the past few months well informed commenters here have provided plenty of well sorted information, so I think I have a reasonable understanding of it now. I'm still ignorant regarding how such a system has managed to survive into the 21st century. To me the question is not how badly the US system works, which is to be expected, but how it actually has succeeded in leading the strongest nation on earth?
To answer a couple of points raised. Technically the English Queen is our head of government, but, if you look into it, this actually ensures we don't really have onerous supervision. Poor old Betty is sensible enough to realise that if she tried to exercise any power we would tell her to go elsewhere and fornicate and then we'd become a republic. I want us to become a republic, but the main resistance to this is from people who worry that an elected president might actually have some power and want to use it.
As in all responsible democracies we have checks and balances to avoid letting our politicians have too much power. One big difference is that our constitution gives the national government power to pass laws overruling state laws. Just this week they did so to repeal gay marriage laws passed in one jurisdiction. Personally I think that action was wrong, but I know it was legal.
Another difference is that very few Australian citizens would think it was ethical or moral to consider overthrowing their elected government by armed force. I'd imagine that if they cancelled elections, ignored the constitution, and started acting dictatorially this would change, but it is not the default position of many people at all, as it appears to be in the US.
As to being ruled by our politicians, we do expect them to govern and make decisions on our behalf (even unpopular ones), but there is little deference or even respect. Politicians here are lumped in with used car salesmen, born again preachers, con men, and shonky tradesmen when it comes to surveys on trustworthiness. Being a smaller country enables us to have more access to our politicians, I've met all of the past six PMs.
The comments regarding how some of the high murder rate may be related to racial background is puzzling. Could this be that these groups are materially disadvantaged because of society's prejudices, and desperation leads to desperate acts? Plenty of research points to no genetic predisposition to violence difference exists between races, so it must be something else?
