You may dislike the system but it is doing what it was designed to do.  There are plenty of unstable parliamentary systems (most famously, Italy) that are dysfunctional because they lack stability and consistency in the law.  

America moves slowly and resists radical change for a reason.  The Founders thought the best system of government was a balance between the passion of the people and the informed consent of a landed elite.

It may take us longer to change things but it is also harder to knock us severely off-course.  The Bush administration has been the first true test of our system since Nixon.  So far, the system has failed.  But the self-correcting part is coming.  We'll see how far the spirit of reform will go.

I don't believe every nation on earth either wants or should be a representative government.

This is a fascinating question to me.  If there is such a thing as "human nature", it would seem that some forms of government would be a better match for allowing the full flowering of that nature than others, and we should support the spread of the best possible government (not necessarily ours, of course).

Or are some forms best under one set of circumstances at meeting human needs, and others best in other situations?  For example, might an autocracy be best when a society as a whole is at a low place on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and a freer system when resources are more available?  Look at how many nations tried to establish democracies in the post-colonial period last century, and ended up autocracies (and many of which then ended up trying democracy again...).  What do these examples tell us?

Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," but then, portraits of Ol' Ben uniformly show him to be well-fed.

Ecological collapse is already happening. Your resentment of the word doesn't change the fact that it is occurring.