as the title says how to get a United States with a parliamentary system what's the best chance here will be after independence or say the secession of the Confederacy but with severe repercussions with secession
Or just don't have separation of powers be adopted as a constitutional principle in the first place.these legislators are allowed into Cabinet with a French trick to avoid a separation of powers violation (they resign and their seats are held by substitutes while they are in government)
In 1884, he imposed a firm 'party pledge' which obliged party MPs to vote as a bloc in parliament on all occasions. The creation of a strict party whip and formal party structure was unique in party politics at the time. The Irish Parliamentary Party is generally seen as the first modern British political party, its efficient structure and control contrasting with the loose rules and flexible informality found in the main British parties, which came to model themselves on the Parnellite model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stewart_Parnell
That sounds like going beyond what the op asked.This is an interesting idea. I would suggest that a model of a ceremonial President (Ireland, Germany, Israel) and a powerful legislative figure is the most plausible. For example, imagine that Washington dies shortly before his election and Adams becomes President. While I have great admiration for Adams, I do not see him having the gravitas to become a truly powerful President. This may cause the countries early demise, but it is at least plausible that the President become ceremonial and the Speaker of the House becomes the head of government.
However, I think the figure who truly caused the powerful Presidency was Jackson. For example, Jackson was the first President to veto a law on political grounds. Thus imagine this POD.
In 1824 Henry Clay chooses to back William Crawford and run as his VP (I recognize this is implausible as Clay was more closely aligned to Adams). Crawford is elected President but his health quickly collapses. Clay through force of personality re-conceptualizes the role of VP as the President of the Senate, guiding and structuring, Senate votes and also effectively runs the executive by chairing cabinet meetings when Crawford is suffering ill health (which is always). The Crawford/Clay Party, called the National Republicans uses this unified control to implement Clay's American System, chartering a Second National Bank of the United States as well as high tariffs and numerous internal improvements. The tariffs cause South Carolina to rebel in 1830. Clay is credited with successfully repressing the rebellion and maintaining the union. In 1832, Crawford retires, adhering to Washington's two term rule for Presidents. Clay ensures that the National Republicans nominate another non-entity for President continuing the practice of a powerful VP. When Clay finally retires in the mid 1840s due to age, the opposing political party, the Jeffersonian-Democrats follow the same practice of nominating a ceremonial figure for President while ensuring that real leadership is provided by the Vice President. However, these figures become mired in a corruption scandal and lose Congressional Confidence. Facing impeachment they both resign, causing new elections and establishing the precedent that when a Vice President loses the confidence of Congress he must resign and new elections occur.
I agree that a parliamentary system does not necessarily result in a more powerful central government. However, a system where the head of government must constantly maintain the confidence of the legislature is the key feature that makes a parliamentary system. Sometimes this leads to substantial instability (Israel or Italy) but in other cases the government typically stays in place for long periods (e.g. Britain and Germany). Typically instability seems highly correlated with proportional representation (each party gets a percentage of the seats in parliament corresponding to their percentage of the vote). The US Constitution both IOTL and ITTL would involve single member constituencies and first past the post elections which typically correlate with fairly stable governments.That sounds like going beyond what the op asked.
A parliamentary system does not in itself means a more powerful central government.
A system where the VP loses the confidence of the legislative assembly leading to a general election could lead to a lot of elections like in countries like Italy and unstable governments.
I am not sure how easy it would be to have a two-party system in a country as large as the USA.
This combined with making a confirmation votes a bicameral affair, could lead to a hybrid parliamentary/separation of powers system.The Electoral College is the Congress in joint session rather than just being constituted that way (this does not immediately create a parliamentary system but it more closely ties the executive to the legislature), the President is then chosen by the leadership in Congress, these legislators are allowed into Cabinet with a French trick to avoid a separation of powers violation (they resign and their seats are held by substitutes while they are in government)
Ireland has a proportional representation voting system and for the most part, post-independence has not had unstable governments.I agree that a parliamentary system does not necessarily result in a more powerful central government. However, a system where the head of government must constantly maintain the confidence of the legislature is the key feature that makes a parliamentary system. Sometimes this leads to substantial instability (Israel or Italy) but in other cases the government typically stays in place for long periods (e.g. Britain and Germany). Typically instability seems highly correlated with proportional representation (each party gets a percentage of the seats in parliament corresponding to their percentage of the vote). The US Constitution both IOTL and ITTL would involve single member constituencies and first past the post elections which typically correlate with fairly stable governments.
Agree there are many factors associated with instability. Hence why I said PR is correlated with unstable governments, not that it directly leads to it. I would agree that first past the post has some undesirable features. Single transferable vote does have some interesting features.Ireland has a proportional representation voting system and for the most part, post-independence has not had unstable governments.
First past the post system in the UK has to lead to parties like the liberal getting 26% of the vote and less than 10 seats in parliament.Single transferable vote - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
yes.Single transferable vote does have some interesting features.