> Wouldn't the idea be to merge USA to Mexico and adopt the Mexican system in whole of USA? Might make lot of sense really.
The Mexican political system isn’t really that different from the American - both are federal presidential republics. If you are looking to give the US a better political system, merger with Mexico wouldn’t make a huge difference
A merger with Canada would be a different story. Many political scientists argue that parliamentary systems (a Prime Minister, with the executive de facto subordinated to the legislature) provide superior political stability and effectiveness compared to the presidential system found in the US and most of Latin America. Allowing the executive to be independent of the legislature instead of subordinated to it results in ineffective governance due to legislative-executive conflict, and centralising so much executive power in a single individual with very limited accountability promotes the development of strongmen with personality cults (caudillos) such as Peron, Bolsonaro or Trump. So if the US adopted Canada’s political system (whether by merging with it or otherwise), that would arguably be a big improvement.
Of course, Canada is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and many Americans may object to coming once more under the British Crown. But you can have a parliamentary republic, with a figurehead/symbolic President with little real power, and a Prime Minister making the big decisions - as in Ireland or Israel or Finland. You can even have a federal parliamentary republic, with states, as in Austria or Germany. Australia voted on switching from a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to a federal parliamentary republic in 1999-the republican side lost, but most people expect there will eventually be a re-run in which they win. If Australia goes down that road, it increases the odds that Canada may eventually follow. The thing about Canada’s system which would arguably really improve the US is the parliamentary vs presidential distinction, not the republic vs monarchy one
The Mexican political system isn’t really that different from the American - both are federal presidential republics. If you are looking to give the US a better political system, merger with Mexico wouldn’t make a huge difference
A merger with Canada would be a different story. Many political scientists argue that parliamentary systems (a Prime Minister, with the executive de facto subordinated to the legislature) provide superior political stability and effectiveness compared to the presidential system found in the US and most of Latin America. Allowing the executive to be independent of the legislature instead of subordinated to it results in ineffective governance due to legislative-executive conflict, and centralising so much executive power in a single individual with very limited accountability promotes the development of strongmen with personality cults (caudillos) such as Peron, Bolsonaro or Trump. So if the US adopted Canada’s political system (whether by merging with it or otherwise), that would arguably be a big improvement.
Of course, Canada is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, and many Americans may object to coming once more under the British Crown. But you can have a parliamentary republic, with a figurehead/symbolic President with little real power, and a Prime Minister making the big decisions - as in Ireland or Israel or Finland. You can even have a federal parliamentary republic, with states, as in Austria or Germany. Australia voted on switching from a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy to a federal parliamentary republic in 1999-the republican side lost, but most people expect there will eventually be a re-run in which they win. If Australia goes down that road, it increases the odds that Canada may eventually follow. The thing about Canada’s system which would arguably really improve the US is the parliamentary vs presidential distinction, not the republic vs monarchy one