I mean, I can see it where you’ve got a monarch.
The United States didn't have much choice. It had to create a new system from scratch. And the first attempt - the Articles of Confederation and the Confederation Congress - didn't actually work all that well.
And really, it's second attempt was quite heavily based on the British Westminster system - just with a modifications to address what the Founding Fathers saw as the greatest faults of that system. And some of those modifications were so clearly improvements that over the next century, Westminster adopted them into British practice - four of the great British Reform Acts of the 19th century involved codifying practices the United States had adopted first. The same thing happened in other ways in some other European nations as well.
So when from the mid 19th century onwards, more colonies and groups of colonies started seeking self government, the government systems they set up - even if based on their mother country's - were also heavily influenced by that of the United States. Australia is a good example of this - its constitution is explicitly a mixture of British practice of the 1890s (following the Reform Acts) modified with ideas drawn from the US Constitution. It's why we have a Monarchy and a Parliament which consists of a House of Representatives with roughly equal sized constituencies, and a smaller Senate with an equal number of Senators for each state.
Does any other country use our 3 branches system?
Again, Australia does. Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, explicitly in the Constitution.
The Executive is the Executive Council of Australia which, legally speaking, consists of all Government Ministers, past and present, and is headed by the Governor General, but in practice consists of the Governor General and the Federal Cabinet. Because all Members of the Cabinet are Members of the Legislature, in most ways, the Governor General is the Executive. He or she is bound by conventions as to how they behave and so in most cases, it really just a rubber stamp for the actions of Parliament - provided everything in working as it should. In the case of a crisis, the Governor General actually has very broad powers to resolve that crisis. They're just not meant to use them very often. But it's there, and it's real.
Your President is far more likely to use his veto powers than our Governor General is, but if our Governor General chooses to veto, there's nothing Parliament can do about it. The thing is, no Governor General has ever used this power, because no government has ever presented a Bill for signature that was so egregious as to justify it. Because they know if they did, it would be blocked.
The Legislature is obviously Parliament, and the Judiciary consists of a variety of courts, from the High Court of Australia, down through the Supreme Courts of the states, through County Courts, Magistrates Courts, etc.
I also don’t get why 49 of the 50 states have bicameral state legislatures. Nebraska has managed fine with just one house. I’ve always thought this, since like 6th grade. It’s just a bogus way to get jobs for pols.
Again, looking at the Australian experience, all of our states except one have a bicameral state Parliament. The exception is Queensland which abolished its upper House in the 1920s. Queensland is also the state which has come closer to having a fascist government than any other in Australia, which spent decades preserving itself in office through constant gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, and which was totally and completely corrupt. So it looks like the Upper House might actually do more than it looks.
Actually, there are reasons for them if you look at how they were originally structured. One of my friends is an Earl and he did sit in the British House of Lords until the right of hereditary peers to do so was abolished in 1999. I've talked about this with him, and his (admittedly self serving view) is that the existence of the British House of Lords with hereditary peers in place ensured that Parliament had people in it who were dedicated to preserving all that was good about their country - because their country's heritage was their family heritage (consider - the Prime Minister at the time of the Reform Act of 1832 which I mentioned previously was Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey - there is still an Earl Grey today - the 6th Earl Grey - who was a member of the House of Lords until 1999, as just one example), and also because they know and expect their country's future to be their family's future. It is their role to look at the long term implications of the laws and acts of Parliament, while it is the lower houses job to look at more immediate effects. Most Upper Houses, though not hereditary, have tried to tap into the same idea - longer terms, at least, sometimes very different ways of entering them, and other mechanisms to ensure they are less concerned about immediate concerns. Whether it works or not, depends on the legislature - and is often a matter of opinion.
Well, as a conservative, I thought it was a disgrace what happened to the house of Lords in Britain. Once again Egalite runs amok.
I can definitely see the need for an upper house nation wide, but perhaps they are useful at a state level. The only think I know for sure about Nebraska is that Johnny Carson came from there.
The Earl Gray, they’re the ones with the tea! They must have been pretty important to have a tea named after them (him?).