Should the U.S. be able to have no-confidence votes for presidents? | The Tylt
Should the U.S. be able to have no-confidence votes for presidents?
The BBC explains a vote of no-confidence is, on paper, a relatively straightforward method of removing and replacing a government. If the government wins the vote, they continue to hold power. If they lose, however, they can be replaced by a strong alternative government, which will replace the prime minister with their own candidate. Or, if no alternative government exists to win a confidence vote or take power, the people will be able to vote in a general election.
The New York Times points out though that the no-confidence vote in Britain has left the country on even more unstable political ground than before.
Had it been successful, the no-confidence motion almost certainly would have ousted Mrs. May and probably have forced a general election, adding more layers of uncertainty in a country fast approaching the March 29 date for leaving the European Union — yet unable to agree on how to do so.
The head-snapping sequence of events leaves Mrs. May — the leader of an intractably divided party, with a split cabinet, no parliamentary majority and no clear path forward on Brexit — more politically wounded than ever, but somehow still standing.
Some may argue the increased turmoil is not worth the ability to remove a government.