As I said, I have no illusions about the reforms I wish the US would adopt

On the other hand, we can keep going with two parties which don't represent most people and are out of touch with the electorate.

Also, Italy uses first past the post (winner take all) instead of the ranked choice voting/instant run-off which is another reform I like. I am in favour of proportional representation and run off elections/ranked choice voting.

As the mans says: "democracy needs policies. And it needs effective policies."

Not the "partisan" bullshit that is going on the the US.

How the bloodless revolution will happen in the United States

The United State is locked in partisan nonsense and needs to get parties which actually represent the people. The only way that will happen is on a local basis, where the duopoly have less control. The non-duopoly parties begin to "infect" the legislature, which is where the real change comes. 

 I was pleasantly surprised when Doggone told me that Antonin Scalia agreed with me about the parliamentary system. 

I don't like it because of Westminster. I like it because the power is where it belongs: in the lesiglature. Additionally, because of that, there is an absolute necessity for political cooperation. One needs to come up with a consensus for a parliamentary system to work. The government literally falls if there can't be a consensus, which is why it is necessary. A lower house of parliament with an ability to dismiss a government by "withholding (or blocking) supply" (rejecting a budget), passing a motion of no confidence, or defeating a confidence motion.

Loss of supply occurs where a government in a parliamentary democracy using the Westminster System or a system derived from it is denied a supply of treasury or exchequer funds, by whichever house or houses of parliament or head of state is constitutionally entitled to grant and deny supply. A defeat on a budgetary vote is one way by which supply can be denied. Loss of supply is typically interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government. Not all "money bills" are necessarily supply bills. For instance, in Australia, supply bills are defined as "bills which are required by the Government to carry on its day-to-day business".^[1]

When a loss of supply occurs, a prime minister is generally required either by constitutional convention or by explicit constitutional instruction to either resign immediately or seek a parliamentary dissolution.

Some constitutions, however, do not allow the option of parliamentary dissolution but rather require the government to be dissolved or to resign.

Given how many budget crises happen in the US, it would probably go through governments like Italy or Belgium until the teething period was over. On the other hand, digging in on the budget would make it clear where the real power lies in government.

The presence of third parties would ensure that there was a way to gain consensus, or withhold it to bring the government more in line with the will of the people. There's a reason why the duopoly do everything they can to keep the power to themselves.

I don't have any illusions about some of the reforms which would be nice to see in US politics since Europe has them and people like Marine Le Pen are prominent in politics. On the other hand, there is a far better representation of political viewpoints in Europe than the One Party-Duopoly United States.

There's a reason I don't like discussing politics with Americans: they are worse than people who lived behind the Iron Curtain in how badly they are propagandised.

There needs to be a real free market of ideas, which isn't happening in the US.

Why is the US plagued by insurrectionism when other Commonwealth Countries are not?

I know someone who has a T-shirt with rebellious US Colonists that says something like "right wing crazies" on it, which is patently wrong.

The US rebels were liberal in their politics (there is a reason "tory" means conservative in Commonwealth political systems).  The rebellious US Colonists belonged to the liberal/whig tradition.

Which gets to the nest issue: Of all the formerly British Countries,  why does the US have a problem with insurrectionism?  The other countries have similar militia tradition.  Australia had the most similar gun culture.  Yet look how quickly Australia went from loose to strict firearm regulation.

And, yes, the other countries had rebellions.

Only the US, which fought a war for independence is the one that has a gun problem.

It was breaking with the rule of law and fighting the war for independence which led to this problem.  It created the culture where Shays' Rebellion and all its various progeny, which includes the US Civil War could occur.

People should not be celebrating the American War for Independence, but looking at the suffering it caused both during and immediately after.  The history which led to the US Constitution being written as an attempt to bring the rule of law to US culture.

An attempt which appears to have been a massive failure.

The French have tried to repair their similar mistake with five different republics (and a couple of Empires tossed in for good measure), yet the US is working with a broken constitution.

It's time for a change.