How bad were things for the colonists? What was so bad for them PERSONALLY that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to resist?
By any practical comparison, they were far less victimized by their rulers as English subjects than today's US citizens.
The revolution was a change of ideas, a change of principled sentiment - hearts and minds. The war was merely a result of their rulers trying to hold on by doing what the state always does, subjugate them via force.
You're missing some key points in your version of history incorrectly summarized to fit your agenda.
The problem the colonists faced was loss of their rights as Englishmen. They did not rebel and form a new government on the basis that they had a nifty new idea that would work better. They did so because the King had so grossly abridged the rights to which they were accustomed including a voice (not absolute, individual consent to every act of government, but a collective voice) in government and taxes. They did so because the King had declared the colonies outside his protection, thus abdicating his right to rule. They did so because the King was sending mercenaries to wage war against them.
They were facing down the short end of imminent imposition of an absolute Monarch ruling over them as some kind of conquered, heathen nation, in direct contradiction of the limited, constitutional Monarch created by Magna Carta in 1215, almost exactly 550 years prior.
The ideas for how to form a new government came about out of necessity once they realized they could not reconcile to their English brethren, but had become a separate and independent people. There is nothing particularly novel about the way any of the Colonies governments were organized in the wake of the DoI and the start of the war. The Colonists had long enjoyed elected legislative bodies (just as England proper did). To change a governor from Royal appointment to election was rather minor.
After the war ended, and as the weakness of the AoC became clear, the Colonies decided changes were needed. The changes became the wholesale change in structure that is the Constitution. But again, democratically elected representatives, independent courts, and an executive were not novel. The novelty was in separation of powers between 3 branches, and between the feds and States. The inclusion of the BoR was a big deal, but fundamentally, not a new idea, but taken from Magna Carta among other prior laws.
It is arrogancy of ignorance to think the Colonists, Founders, and Framers devised the concept of self-government out of whole cloth. They built upon five and a half centuries of English progress in the area of self-government, individual rights, and limited government. I believe they were truly inspired in what they brought together. But they built upon much that preceded them.
Most importantly, they did so out of necessity only when they could not reconcile with King George. They did not set out on some grand experiment from simple philosophy, but rather out of necessity to prevent imminent, impending, absolute tyranny imposed at the hand of hired mercenaries working for a bat crazy King.
Now, when the blue helmets of the UN "peacekeepers" start heading for your State, let me know.
Then you can start comparing yourself to the Colonists.
All comparisons between our current government and the Nazis, or rape, are too offensive for those who endured the actual Nazis or have been victims of rape, to even address.
Charles