Which system of government is better? US or Westminster

My take on the types and evolution of governments has been enclosed in spoiler tags to avoid a cluttered post:

Government has come a long way since the times when the monarch wielded all the power. In those days, if anybody wanted a law or privilege the would have had to “petition” the monarch. Over the centuries representative groups evolved that discussed which laws they would petition the monarch to approve. These “houses of parliament” gradually came to have powers of their own.

The US obtained independence at a unique time in history. The monarch was still the most powerful person in government so it seemed natural that a president should have similar powers but with senatorial/judicial oversight over some decisions and some other powers reserved for congress. In England however, the parliamentary system continued to evolve to the point where parliament has all of the power and the Queen is head of state in title only. The prime minister is the most powerful person in government today.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand which gained self government run a similar “Westminister” system but the Queen has no involvement; her powers are delegated to a “Governor General” who seldom exercises those powers independently. (Other countries that have become republics tend to have both a president and a prime minister who sometimes clash but I won’t concern myself with with these systems here).

I am interested in which system of government suits the people better. In the past, I would have argued that the US system was superior. Not only do the people vote (albeit indirectly) for the person who has the top job but they also get to select the candidates for election. Also, the president is not limited to the talentless gas bagging yes men in congress when selecting members of his executive. He can choose whoever he thinks is best for the job. Since congress is elected independently of the POTUS, they do not act as a rubber stamp for his decisions.

However, having witnessed the shenanigans in the last few years, I am reconsidering my stance. The primary process turned up some of the worst candidates in modern history. And now that he is elected, you are stuck with Trump for at least 4 years. Even if he were impeached, you would have no say on his replacement.

At least in Australia, if the prime minister becomes an electoral liability, he can be replaced with a simple party vote. As Tony Abbott showed, this is a powerful safeguard against a leader going rogue.

Has anybody else got thoughts on this?