The original post suggests a different president in 1912 could change the result - but who? William Jennings Bryan again? I do love the nice, fine details about the 1926 election though.

One thing the Constitution of the Confederate States of America got right.
A mild personal story, but as a kid, it used to confuse the hell out of me there was discussion about the 1864 election in the U. S. but nothing about the C. S. A. elections that year... it wasn't until doing my own research in early HS I found out about the six-year terms.
 
The original post suggests a different president in 1912 could change the result - but who? William Jennings Bryan again? I do love the nice, fine details about the 1926 election though.


A mild personal story, but as a kid, it used to confuse the hell out of me there was discussion about the 1864 election in the U. S. but nothing about the C. S. A. elections that year... it wasn't until doing my own research in early HS I found out about the six-year terms.

Did the CSA ever have any elections? Didn't they just appoint their congressmen and president?
 
Did the CSA ever have any elections? Didn't they just appoint their congressmen and president?

Iirc they did that for the Provisional congress which functioned until a permanent constitution was adopted. But Jefferson Davis was elected to a full term (in Nov 1861 iirc) and a Congress was elected with him.

There was an off-year election in 1863 which I understand returned an anti-Administration majority - though I'm not sure how that was defined given that the CSA had no organised political parties.
 
The original post suggests a different president in 1912 could change the result - but who? William Jennings Bryan again?

Champ Clark was Wilson's principal rival, but Bryan could also have gotten it had he not run in 1908, or maybe even after doing so had he been prepared to get his hands dirty by entering the primaries in 1912, rather than hoping the Convention would draft him.
 

jahenders

Banned
Another interesting effect would be on Senatorial elections.

If the presidency is for 6 years, then one cohort of senators is elected in presidential years, and the other two cohorts never are. Since presidential campaigns significantly affect down ticket elections, you will end up with 2 classes of senators (those who ran in an presidential year, and maybe got swept in with the tide; and those who didn't and maybe serve as a protest vote), although how much difference that will make is not obvious.

Good point. Though, I'll try to speculate on the general effect this would have based on my theory of political equilibrium which holds that the American body politic (consciously or not) wants things to remain within a certain deviation from balance or neutral -- the point of balance. The point of balance may shift over time and on different issues but there's a general 'center' that the American people are most comfortable with. Therefore, when they feel that the country is going too far to the left or right, they tend to balance the situation by voting for the opposition party in slightly greater numbers. This tendency to correct is increased based on the voters' perception of the degree 'out of whack' and how long things have been that way. Thus, if you have 8 years of a liberal president, the people tend to be somewhat more inclined to vote for a president and/or representatives/senators who pull things more toward the center (or vice versa).

In the 6-year president scenario, the presidential cohort could go either way, they could be elected on the president's coat-tails (and his party), or they could an anti-reaction to the last president and 'fatigue' of him. The presidential +2 (years) cohort would tend to balance, whether that's opposing the president or the congress in power (depending on perceived power and degree 'out of balance'). The presidential +4 cohort would more likely be tending against the president.

An equation for the degree of correction the people (unconsciously) feel is necessary might be something like:
Degree Correction = 1 - ((PDR * PTP) + (CDR * CTP) + (JDR * JTP))
[Where PDR, CDR, and JDR are presidential, congressional, and judiciary degrees right of center; and PTP, CTP, and JTP are percentage of term completed (6 years president, 2 years congress (as a whole), judiciary how long with that perceived balance of power].
 
I had actually intended to use the amendment as a cornerstone of a timeline I was writing. The premise was that TR sought renomination in 1908 and won while WJB did not seek the Democratic nomination, assuming TR was unbeatable. WJB then ran in 1912, winning the election, and securing passage of this amendment. That's really all I got out of it, and this discussion certainly helps to answer some of the unanswered questions I tend to have.

Of course, there are too many butterflies for this question to be reasonable, but if you think of one-term presidents in recent history (Carter and Bush 41 for example), it seems that an extra two years could have saved their presidencies. For Clinton and Bush 43, it seems two fewer years would have helped their public images a lot. Again, I understand they're too far removed from the POD to be reasonable thoughts on inquiry, but it gives perspective to advantages and disadvantages of a six-year term.
 
Of course, there are too many butterflies for this question to be reasonable, but if you think of one-term presidents in recent history (Carter and Bush 41 for example), it seems that an extra two years could have saved their presidencies. For Clinton and Bush 43, it seems two fewer years would have helped their public images a lot. Again, I understand they're too far removed from the POD to be reasonable thoughts on inquiry, but it gives perspective to advantages and disadvantages of a six-year term.
The 'Sixth Year Curse' is also an alternate name for the 'Second Term' curse, so you have a point.

For reference, because I did this for a TL test, election years would be: 1920, 1926, 1932, 1938, 1944, 1950, 1956, 1962, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2004, 2010, 2016, 2022.
 
I think you may take it that it would.

Without the billions of dollars that she got in unsecured loans, Britain would have been unable to subsidise her continental allies, who were getting increasingly dependent on her financially. Also she wouldn't have had the help of the US tanker fleet (about a million deadweight tons) at a time when the RN was getting critically short of fuel oil. Look for the Entente to seek peace before the end of 1917.
Good point. If the Allies sue for peace, Germany would try to get the most out of it. (I don't know if this means territorial gains or financial compensation.) The Ottoman Empire seems done regardless. Considering the Balkan mess that caused the war to begin with, AH prolly has no choice but to liberalize and I think Emperor Karl would be a. I dont know how a victorious (however pyrrhic it may be) Emperor Karl of AH would behave ITTL.
Also, if Bryan becomes President, would he act as a mediator considering his impressive record as a diplomat OTL? Or will he maintain a hardline non-interventionist stance and not try to broker a peace deal in Europe?

The 'Sixth Year Curse' is also an alternate name for the 'Second Term' curse, so you have a point.

For reference, because I did this for a TL test, election years would be: 1920, 1926, 1932, 1938, 1944, 1950, 1956, 1962, 1968, 1974, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2004, 2010, 2016, 2022.
There's an election this year even ITTL:D I wonder who would be the candidates
 
Last edited:
Also, if Bryan becomes President, would he act as a mediator considering his impressive record as a diplomat OTL? Or will he maintain a hardline non-interventionist stance and not try to broker a peace deal in Europe?

He may well try to mediate, but he's pretty certain to get the same dusty response that Wilson did. Either the Entente or the CP won't want him - possibly neither.

However, on his OTL record I can't imagine anything that would cause him to enter the war.
 
He may well try to mediate, but he's pretty certain to get the same dusty response that Wilson did. Either the Entente or the CP won't want him - possibly neither.

However, on his OTL record I can't imagine anything that would cause him to enter the war.
You're probably right. WJB might try to act as mediator, but with limited success since the US states out of the war ITTL. Who wants an outsider dictating your future?
 
Top