[plain talk]

I wonder if impeachment should be more like a “vote of no confidence” by the party of the president, like they have in the parliamentary system.

It certainly should if people had honor any more. The threat of impeachment was enough for Nixon to resign. However when slick Willy was impeached the dems just ignored it and claimed it was partisan, unfair, etc. If politicians are immoral and corrupt then what you state will not work.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I wonder if impeachment should be more like a “vote of no confidence” by the party of the president, like they have in the parliamentary system.

It certainly should if people had honor any more. The threat of impeachment was enough for Nixon to resign. However when slick Willy was impeached the dems just ignored it and claimed it was partisan, unfair, etc. If politicians are immoral and corrupt then what you state will not work.

A vote of no confidence would turn the government into a parliamentary system. The Constitution intends the states - not the people of the states but the state governments - to determine the POTUS. Traditionally the states have held at-large elections of their electors, but two states elect only two electors at large, and elect one elector in each congressional district. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority of the votes of the electors, each state - as represented by the majority of its Representatives in Congress - casts one vote for any of the top three electoral vote winners. The problems with impeachment are

1. the 2/3 supermajority required to convict is unattainable to convict a Democrat - and because the Democrats have proved that, almost certainly the Republicans would act the same way in a Nixon scenario in the future.

2. the jury consists of senators who - being legislators rather than executives - are a poor choice for “peers” of the POTUS.

If you do noting about the former problem, it is doubtful if anything else will avail - but the second problem might be addressed by an amendment constituting a jury not of 100 Senators but of 50 state governors. In that scenario, a governor who voted to acquit Bill Clinton would be indicating that he reserved the right to comport himself in office the way Bill Clinton did. It is at least possible that even Democrat governors would have blanched at that prospect. Or maybe not . . .