LogFAQs > #968868235

Right, the US president is elected directly. To use the words of the founding fathers who debated this issue, he does not serve at the pleasure of Congress. Practically, the threshold to remove him (50%+1 of the lower house and 2/3 of the upper house) is higher than to remove a UK prime minister also (50%+1 of the lower house which really becomes 50%+1 of the MPs in the PM's own party).

I did always think it odd that countries with parliamentary systems insist on having a working majority in parliament at all. Like, why can't they just go on with their term if no one can command a majority of the lower house? The US is in this state more often than not and we tend to do better when we are in that state than when a president actually does command a majority in Congress - that is when we tend to embark on really bad ideas like the Iraq War, Obamacare, etc.

Like I would consider the 4 Israeli elections quite decisive - the voters clearly are split just about exactly 50/50 between being pro-Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu. Why do you need to reach a majority where just about half the electorate will have no power and the other half will hold all the power? That seems much less fair than just carrying on with the 60/60 split.