Will British-Style Parliamentary Democracy be Better for the US?

Question

I know, I know, Americans think that the US Constitution is the best in the world and it's perhaps the most sacred document after the Bible, but I keep thinking that in today's fast paced world, it would better to have no-confidence motions to remove the head of state. Four years is a long time to put up with an unpopular president who has not broken any law. A parliamentary democracy would also allow more political parties to contest elections and to build coalitions.

Question for Bobgeller:

But in a systen where the winner takes all the electoral college votes of any given state, how can small parties have a say in the election of the president?

Answer 1

The number of political parties is not restricted by the Constitution, and partisan politics was not even addressed in it. In fact, one could have a Pres. and VP from different parties! The founders did not WANT the Presidency to be a popularity contest, which is why the POPULAR vote is irrelevant. Only the ELECTORAL vote matters, and electors are determined by state law, not federal.
Neither is this a "democracy". It is a representative republic, ruled not by the majority, but by LAW, which IS the Constitution.

BTW, eight years was TOO long to put up with a president who DID break laws. But Clinton got to keep his job, didn't he?

Reply: As an attempted elected Libertarian in SEVEN election, it is very difficult. As they are STATE laws, get a local rep elected, to propose state reforms in elector appointments. The Feds can't do it.

Answer 2

I do think they need a no confidence type of system in place (staying president with an approval rating of 32% is rediculous), but other than that, the british system isn't much better.

Answer 3

null question

it isn't going to happen -- the small states won't permit such a change to the Constitution.

Answer 4

look at the way England is heading I think not.

Answer 5

If it works, don't fix it.