America needs a new political party. Both of the current ones are bad. Republicans are way too reactionary, Democrats are pro-censorship, and both are getting more extreme. Neither appropriately represents an average person.
comments (single view)
also, the president should be able to be removed by any time by a simple >50% majority of congress, similarly to how the UK parliament works. This ensures that if the people change their mind, or dislike a president, the president’s decision will still reflect their voices. Same thing with congress. Also helps with accountability (*cough* George Santos *cough* )
no, that would be misused so much. In fact, that’s one of the main things the founding fathers tried to stop when they wrote the constitution.
It would mean that one party could kick out people they don’t like (similar to how republicans kicked out 3 people from the Tennessee house). For example, right now the republicans could kick out Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (because Diane Feinstein is absent right now).
No, it would mean that the president would always represent the people. Look at the UK, in their system, the president is always of the same party as the biggest (not necessarily majority) group in parliament. I agree that in a two party system, this would lead to problems, but when bundled with more parties, it would require much, much more cooperation between political groups, so that the president selection more accurately reflects a combination of many viewpoints, compromises, etc.
Look at when Boris Johnson “resigned”. He knew that, because his own party (and his party’s ally parties) did not support him, he would be kicked out if he didn’t resign. This means that as soon as a president’s popularity drops, they will be held accountable.
In the founding fathers’ era, politics and the interactions between political groups with different motivations was very different and many of the systems that are currently successful in countries like the UK and Canada had not been implemented yet.
If implemented, it would basically mean that the people don’t elect the president, and the congressman would elect them instead
Exactly! But, the congresspeople can also be removed by the members of their parties at any time. Check the Wikipedia page for the British Parliamentary system for more information. many other countries (Canada, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Latvia, the Netherlands, and New Zealand, South Africa) use almost identical systems.
all of that would decrease the amount of say that the people have, and increase bureaucracy. We don’t want either of those. I want a government that has the smartest people in the world who work together to make decisions for the good of the people, not for themselves, then they implement those decisions ASAP.
Impeachment doesn’t cut it. Impeachement requires that the president has committed “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” What I’m talking about is a party in Congress being able to get rid of their own president for any reason (as long as the majority agree)
What other legitimate reason is there to remove a president besides having committed a crime? If a president is merely incompetent, then their power has a 4-year time limit. If a president is really incompetent, see Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
Look up how a vote of no confidence works in the UK and many other parliamentary democracies. Trusting the president to make “the right choices” is simply not an adequate solution for a country. If the people no longer wish for a president to be in office, especially if his own party no longer supports him, he should be removed. It’s about increasing accountability and it works. Look how Liz Truss and Boris Johnson were easily replaced with a (slightly) more competent person. It means that there is no way for a politician to do anything that doesn’t align with what he promised to voters and what his party stands for 
I don’t think following the steps of the UK is a good idea considering its politics is an absolute shitshow. A party in power that knows that the populace despises it choosing a PM on their own volition is inheritably undemocratic.
especially if his own party no longer supports him
No, only the people should make that choice
Also, I just had this same conversation with oren above, but in summary my main points were:
In the time of the founding fathers, there was more concern about the general political-awareness that ordinary people had (the reason for the electoral college). Today, however, it is inexcusable for politicians to be trusted to a level where "they know best" or "know better than the people do" about issues. Politicians in he US can do anything they like, mostly because of this reason. There is no way to hold them accountable and you just have to "trust them". They can also change their minds about any issue (or lie to voters, cough George Santos cough) and get away with it
@joebiden said it pretty well:
senator joe manchin is a great example of this, look up his pictures with pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups lol, it’s whoever donates
In the UK, politicians cannot be bought by corporations as easily, because their policies have to cater to what the ordinary people actually want. When Liz Truss promised lower taxes, lower inflation, etc. and failed to deliver, she was able to be removed and her party replaced her with someone else. She didn't have another 4 years to cause mayhem/destroy the country, which is a good thing.
TLDR: It’s not about choosing the lesser of two evils in that system, as there are many more parties/viewpoints/perspectives to choose from, and you vote for a party or a set of ideals, rather than for a person.
All of that is just a side-effect of a two-party system, not a presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system.
george santos is SUCH a bad liar it’s crazy 
how you gonna claim that you did drag as a joke and then imply that you watch rupauls drag race, the GOP got him in such heavy denial