This is the part I really have the most problems with. They have an entrenched power base that is not under the control of the masses. I am kind of suprised more Brits dont have a problem with this.

Liberals here like to complain about our politicians, but yeah, Britain sounds a lot worse though. None of our politicians hold hereditary positions...there is no politician that cannot be removed.

Here's the short version of the American system:

President is the supreme commander of all our military. He is elected by the electoral college, which in turn are supposed to vote according to the majority in whatever area they represent. They are not BOUND to do this by law however. These so-called "faithless electors" are few and far between. No faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of a Presidential election in US history. This is considered a big problem by a lot of people, but since electors have not abused their power very often, it has not really come up as an issue for most people. I think some states have laws that punish faithless electors, but their votes still stand regardless. Whoever gets the most electoral votes wins. The President cannot make any laws, but can VETO (nullify) any law made by congress. Congress in turn can override his VETO (I think by a 2/3 majority only).

Congress is made up of two houses - The House of representatives and the Senate. The senate is elected by each state (two senators per state). The House is elected by each state by population (so larger states are represented more than smaller states). Laws are proposed in the senate first (I believe). After they pass the senate they must then also pass the House. I admit I am not 100% sure on this...might be the other way around. Like the President, they have fixed terms (think is it 2-6 years). Unlike the President, they do not have term limits...they can run forever if they want. But elections are held at fixed times.

The Judicial branch is mixed; some judges are appointed by elected officials. Some are elected themselves. The Supreme Court is responsible for "interpreting" the Constitution. Sometimes this interpretation is (in the opinion of many) rather creative. But they ultimately get to decide what was intended by any given part of the Constitution. The Constitution overrides all other laws, no matter when they were made or by who. Any law that they decide conflicts with the Constitution is null and void, as if it never existed. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the sitting President, and then confirmed by congress (I forget what ratio is required, but I think it is a simple majority). There is no limit to how many can be appointed in any term; so if all the justices were to fall over dead tomorrow, Bush would get to pick all new ones. They have no term limit...they are there for life or until they choose to retire. There are mechanisms in place to allow Congress to remove supreme court justices, but they have never been put into practice as far as I know.

The Constitution can be changed (Amended) by a 3/4 Vote in congress (I think) and then must also be ratified by a referrendum in 3/4 of the States as well. My ratios may be off (might be 2/3 instead of 3/4), but that is the gist of how it works. An Amendment effectively changes the Constitution, although it technically does not erase anything.

I am sure there are a lot of details I glossed over, but that is the broad overview. I am familiar with the major aspects of the British system; Does the House of Lords typically vote in line with the will of the masses in your opinion?