I can see the good and the bad of a "vote of no confidence."

On the good side, it eliminates unworthy candidates; however, I would begin the process much earlier than we do now in order for it to work with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. If we were to leave the voting dates as they are, then a "vote of no confidence" would not be given until November 8th, the 100 day time frame starts on the 9th, which would result in the sitting buffoon (whoever they may be) remaining in control longer than they would under normal circumstances. This is where the bad comes in.

A sitting President would be emboldened to do everything in their power to ensure a "vote of no confidence," just so they could remain in power longer...and what happens if the first 100 days passes and the new candidates aren't any better than those kicked off the initial ticket...where and when do we draw the line...who draws the line...obviously not the sitting President who gets to remain in power until a decision is made. It's not quite the "simple solution" I'm sure we are all hoping for, but I think there's room for improvement on this idea...keep working on it though...there's something there!