| Mr Khan said:
It's just that there is far far less incentive for any of our presidents to resign (basically you resign to avoid impeachment, and impeachment was only ever attempted three times out of 44 presidents), whereas in Britain a strategic shakeup of the PM makes sense because you don't want a bad PM to mess with your party's chances in the next general election or worse yet, to prompt a Vote of No Confidence. |
And this is why the two systems are very different.
Ford was an unelected president, yes, but in exceptional circumstances. Nixon had to step down.
The British system encourages changing the Prime Minister without voter consent for purely party political purposes. It also makes changes of Prime Minister more frequent; two out of our last four Prime Ministers were unelected; there have been 13 unelected British Prime Ministers since 1900 (although, to be fair, one of them called an election within two months of becoming PM).
I believe Ford was the only fully unelected president in American history, unless you count Dubya.
