A Second Constitutional Convention Creates A Parliamentary Democracy

I had an interesting idea that I thought I'ld share. I think the idea of the US having a Parliamentary system would be interesting (though personally I prefer the presidential system set up at the Constitutional Convention). However I find most of the timelines that have the US set up a Parliamentary system of government involve monarchs, whether the US selects some low level German nobleman, or decides to make George Washington King. However I want the US to have a Parliamentary System without a monarch.

From my studies I do not think it is very possible to set up a parliamentary system in 1787 or before without a big PoD. This is because the young US has just defeated Great Britain, the epitome of parliamentary government, and they were in no mood to establish one. However I think it would be possible if the US had a big defeat in the war of 1812.

The scenario I imagine is a quasi-collapse of the Federal Government during the war of 1812. Madison, Gerry, and the other top echelon of the Federal Government at the time are incapacitated, DC is more devastated, and it becomes virtually inoperable. This leads to an objective American defeat in the war. The US loses some territory and pride.

After such a scenario I can imagine a second constitutional convention being called where they decide they need a stronger government, and decide to adopt a Parliamentary government.

How does this sound?
 

Sulemain

Banned
As I recall, around the time of Wilson, there was a belief that the US was heading in the direction of a parliamentary democracy. And as I recall, it wouldn't take a new constitution, just a couple of amendments.
 
As I recall, around the time of Wilson, there was a belief that the US was heading in the direction of a parliamentary democracy. And as I recall, it wouldn't take a new constitution, just a couple of amendments.

Interesting; I had not heard of this before. What trends did those who held that belief cite?
_______


There's a thread sleeping somewhere in the catacombs of this forum in which the US moves toward a parliamentary system as a result of the presidency being significantly weakened following Andrew Johnson's impeachment and removal from office.
 
Interesting; I had not heard of this before. What trends did those who held that belief cite?
_______


There's a thread sleeping somewhere in the catacombs of this forum in which the US moves toward a parliamentary system as a result of the presidency being significantly weakened following Andrew Johnson's impeachment and removal from office.

A series of speakers who used the Rules Committee and their own interpretations of parliamentary rules to assert the implementation of their agenda against the opposition.
 

Perkeo

Banned
What is the difference? Someone will head of government, and either way, the most important result of the general election will be who that someone is.

The (mostly parlamentarian) European political systems do not really differ less from each other than they differ from presidential systems like the US or France.
 
A few thoughts:

During the Constitutional Convention, there were at least a few delegates who supported having Congress elect the President. If that entered the Constitution and then Congress later directly or by Amendment gave itself the power to "unelect" a President in the middle of his term, then the U.S. is basically a parliamentary state. A figurehead executive isn't really necessary if the actual chief executive still only serves at the pleasure of the legislature.

Woodrow Wilson, I believe, did see that the U.S. was heading towards parliamentarianism until he himself increased the power of the presidency. The few presidents before him didn't really use any of their powers to push their own politics. The big mover was the Speaker of the House. Under the theory that was developing/may have been developing at the time, the Speaker would be real head of government while the President and his Cabinet were, basically, elected civil servants doing Congress's bidding.

And one final thought. A few months ago I posted that, as I see things, the U.S. could convert to a parliamentary state without so much as changing one law, no Amendments needed. I fully admit that I don't think that is likely. I also fully admit that even if a determine majority of Americans wanted a parliamentary system, Amendments would be necessary to protect their views after they lose an election.

As I see things there are very few differences between the paper powers of the U.S. President and the British Monarchy. The difference between the two offices is one of practical power and motivation. The U.S. President has all of his powers as practical powers and can motivate himself. By that I mean, that unless the President is forbidden to do something or required to do something in only one way, he can do pretty much whatever he wants. The Queen on the other hand as few practical powers that she can use at her discretion. And the motivation to use all of her actual and theoretical powers comes from the PM's office and not herself.

If the Queen woke up one day and decided to start doing things her own way, there would be a major problem, at best. When the President wakes up one morning and starts doing things his way, we call that Tuesday. And most Americans expect that to happen every January 20th in the year after the Summer Olympics.

My theory in a nutshell is this, there is nothing stopping the President from acting just like the Queen. Whether he decides to accept advice only from the Speaker or from another House leader, no one is going to stop him and no one can stop him. If a few presidents in a row only listen to House leaders, that could set a real precedent, even create a de facto parliamentary system. If that happens the only substantiative differences between the U.S. and the U.K. is that the U.S. elects its head of state and the U.K. allows its cabinet secretaries to sit in Parliament.

Again, I admit that my campaign to be elected Pop will bear fruit before that happens.
 
A figurehead executive isn't really necessary if the actual chief executive still only serves at the pleasure of the legislature.
Every parliamentary nation has a head of state as well as a chief executive. The business of the head of state is to preside over the process of parliamentary organization - the formation of a government after an election or vote of no confidence. The previous chief executive is out of office and cannot do this - and no one may want him to.
Under the theory that was developing/may have been developing at the time, the Speaker would be real head of government while the President and his Cabinet were, basically, elected civil servants doing Congress's bidding.
There are some major difficulties with this notion.

First, a parliament sits continuously. Congress is not always in session. Until long after Wilson, Congressional sessions were often quite short and frequently the first session of a Congress was the December after the last election.

Second, the President appoints all officers of the government. The Senate, not the House, confirms or rejects them. During the long periods between Congressional sessions, the President could make recess appointments to fill offices.

Third, a parliament can remove all the officers of state by majority vote. Congress can remove an officer of the government only by impeachment, which requires 2/3 of both houses, but the President may remove any officer at will.

Fourth, in a parliamentary state all officers of the government are sitting members of the legislature; in the U.S. none are.
 
As I recall, around the time of Wilson, there was a belief that the US was heading in the direction of a parliamentary democracy. And as I recall, it wouldn't take a new constitution, just a couple of amendments.

About a year ago I had looked into this topic as well and I had been thinking about that the closest one could get to having a prime minister for the US with as few changes to OTL as possible (to minimize the butterflies) would be to have the position of Secretary of State keeping all of the original domestic duties it had (such as managing the US Mint) in addition to the foreign affairs duties and becoming a sort of "Chief Secretary" who can constitutionally chair Cabinet meetings in the absence of the President and Vice President and eventually having the Sec. of State as an elected position (as happens in some US states apparently) alongside that of President and Vice President. Combine that with Woodrow Wilson getting his (pre-Presidential) wish and have Presidents be leaders of their respective parties in the way prime ministers usually are (although since party structure seems to be different in the US and the in Westminster systems this would probably amount to the President also being Chairman/Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee or the Republican National Committee).

A few thoughts:

During the Constitutional Convention, there were at least a few delegates who supported having Congress elect the President. If that entered the Constitution and then Congress later directly or by Amendment gave itself the power to "unelect" a President in the middle of his term, then the U.S. is basically a parliamentary state. A figurehead executive isn't really necessary if the actual chief executive still only serves at the pleasure of the legislature.


Maybe given the example of the Vice President being officially "President of the Senate" we could also have seen the President being officially "President of the House" and have the Speaker of the House being in the same position, constitutionally as the President pro tempore of the Senate (i.e. technically a deputy).
 
I had an interesting idea that I thought I'ld share. I think the idea of the US having a Parliamentary system would be interesting (though personally I prefer the presidential system set up at the Constitutional Convention). However I find most of the timelines that have the US set up a Parliamentary system of government involve monarchs, whether the US selects some low level German nobleman, or decides to make George Washington King. However I want the US to have a Parliamentary System without a monarch.

From my studies I do not think it is very possible to set up a parliamentary system in 1787 or before without a big PoD. This is because the young US has just defeated Great Britain, the epitome of parliamentary government, and they were in no mood to establish one. However I think it would be possible if the US had a big defeat in the war of 1812.

The scenario I imagine is a quasi-collapse of the Federal Government during the war of 1812. Madison, Gerry, and the other top echelon of the Federal Government at the time are incapacitated, DC is more devastated, and it becomes virtually inoperable. This leads to an objective American defeat in the war. The US loses some territory and pride.

After such a scenario I can imagine a second constitutional convention being called where they decide they need a stronger government, and decide to adopt a Parliamentary government.
Um, the Articles of Confederation WERE Parliamentary in some sense. The Congress was a parliament, and had a weak executive before 1787.

Ratification of Constitution almost failed in 1788. 3 major States ratified by narrow margins:
Massachusetts 187-168
Virginia 89-79
New York 30-27

Any of the 3 rejecting ratification would have made the constitution unworkable.

So. The compromises in Constitution are for some reasons rejected.

Since the original Articles of Confederation are still felt to be unworkable, a second Constitutional convention is promptly called, late 1788 or early 1789.

Now they have to work out a Constitution that would pass ratification.

What compromises would the Second Convention make?

What were the OTL objections of the people who voted against ratification in the 3 major states - 168 of Massachusetts, 79 of Virginia and 27 of New York?
 
Every parliamentary nation has a head of state as well as a chief executive. The business of the head of state is to preside over the process of parliamentary organization - the formation of a government after an election or vote of no confidence. The previous chief executive is out of office and cannot do this - and no one may want him to.

Does that mean South Africa isn't a parliamentary state because its president is elected by parliament, can be deposed by parliament, and is the leader of the largest party in parliament?

First, a parliament sits continuously. Congress is not always in session. Until long after Wilson, Congressional sessions were often quite short and frequently the first session of a Congress was the December after the last election.

If parliaments sit continuously, why is the Canadian Parliament prorogued every time it says anything bad about Harper? Why does the Queen make a speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament if there wasn't a new session beginning?

I will concede that most national legislatures probably sit more than the U.S. Congress does. But that is not germane to my argument.

Fourth, in a parliamentary state all officers of the government are sitting members of the legislature; in the U.S. none are.

Are you saying that the Netherlands isn't a parliamentary state? All cabinet ministers must resign from the States General.

Second, the President appoints all officers of the government. The Senate, not the House, confirms or rejects them. During the long periods between Congressional sessions, the President could make recess appointments to fill offices.

Third, a parliament can remove all the officers of state by majority vote. Congress can remove an officer of the government only by impeachment, which requires 2/3 of both houses, but the President may remove any officer at will.

I think I see what is going on here. Are you arguing that the U.S. cannot "unofficially" become a parliamentary state or that it merely cannot become a Westminster parliamentary state? I will agree that it would take constitutional amendments if we wanted the U.S. to adopt the Westminster system. I also admit that will never happen. I also admit that it pretty darn unlikely that the U.S would adapt a parliamentary system in general and if it did, some form of entrenchment would be necessary.

My argument is that the U.S. could become a de facto parliamentary state if enough politicians wanted to. I emphasis strongly that such a system would fall apart as soon as someone was elected President and wanted to be more of a figurehead. If the pre-Wilson "parliamentary" change theory is true, that is basically what happened.

Under my plan the system would work like this:

  • A president would be elected. He would be expected to act like a figurehead and only use his powers during periods of deadlock.
  • All the real decisions would be made by a "Prime Minister." The "PM" could be the Speaker. He could be the person who would have been the Speaker under the system we have now. Or he could just be someone unofficially elected by the House Majority Caucus.
  • Cabinet Secretaries would be nominated and then confirmed by the Senate. Either the nominations would effectively be made by the "PM" and would be politicians who resign from their Congressional seats and serve until they are asked to resign by the "PM" or they would be people expected to act like career civil servants and dutifully follow the orders of the "PM" and his "ministers." In the second option, the "Ministers" would be able to continue to sit in the House or Senate. Perhaps they would be the relevant committee chairmen. Instead of grilling a Secretary, they would give orders that would be expected to be obeyed.
  • If the "PM" loses the confidence of the House, he would "resign" and either new "ministers" would start giving the President and the Cabinet advice or new Cabinet officers would be appointed from the new front bench.
I am not, and do not, say that such a system is likely. I am not saying that it is a rational, logical, plausible, possible, or even "Is it Possible that..." in the sense of Ancient Aliens on the History Channel, development at any point in history. All I am saying, is that given my understanding of U.S. law and parliamentary theories of government (of which the Westminster system, which could not work, is but one example) this is something that can legally come about if both politicians want it and whoever happens to be President wants to take orders from the "PM."
 
My argument is that the U.S. could become a de facto parliamentary state if enough politicians wanted to.

The U.S. could, unofficially, become a hereditary monarchy, a theocracy, a unitary republic, an elective monarchy, an aristocratic republic, or any other form of government if everyone agreed to operate in that mode and apply the results to the de jure government.
 
Does that mean South Africa isn't a parliamentary state because its president is elected by parliament, can be deposed by parliament, and is the leader of the largest party in parliament?

South Africa is not a parliamentary state. Its legislature is elected for a fixed term of five years. The President is then elected by the legislature for five years. He is both head of government and of state. (The Chief Justice presides over the election of the President; there is a few hours' gap between the expiration of the previous term and the new President's election, unless of course the legislature fails to elect promptly.)

In a parliamentary state, the legislature can remove the executive by majority vote at any time for any reason. In South Africa, the legislature must have a 2/3 vote to remove for "serious violation [or] misconduct [or] inability".

Also, there is no requirement that the President be "the leader of the largest party". If the largest party does not have a majority, an alliance of other parties could elect the President. Or the largest party might support a candidate of another allied party.
If parliaments sit continuously, why is the Canadian Parliament prorogued every time it says anything bad about Harper? Why does the Queen make a speech at the annual State Opening of Parliament if there wasn't a new session beginning?

A parliament is normally in session except for brief intervals at elections. Congress, traditionally, was out of session for most of the time.

The bedrock principle of parliamentary government is that the executive serves at the pleasure of the legislature, which can be withdrawn at any time - and is at all times under the threat of instant withdrawal.

I will concede that most national legislatures probably sit more than the U.S. Congress does. But that is not germane to my argument.

The power of the legislature to remove the executive must be immediate at all times for parliamentary government to function as such. If the legislature adjourns for several months at a time, its power over the executive ceases.

Are you saying that the Netherlands isn't a parliamentary state? All cabinet ministers must resign from the States General.

Very odd that; are there any other parliamentary states with such a rule? WI the ruling party has a very narrow majority? Are there immediate by-elections? WI a by-election goes against the incumbent party? ISTM that this rule requires all prospective ministers to represent only very safe seats.

In any case, a minister must first be elected to the legislature, unlike the U.S. or any Congressional state.
 
A few thoughts:

During the Constitutional Convention, there were at least a few delegates who supported having Congress elect the President. If that entered the Constitution and then Congress later directly or by Amendment gave itself the power to "unelect" a President in the middle of his term, then the U.S. is basically a parliamentary state. A figurehead executive isn't really necessary if the actual chief executive still only serves at the pleasure of the legislature.

Woodrow Wilson, I believe, did see that the U.S. was heading towards parliamentarianism until he himself increased the power of the presidency. The few presidents before him didn't really use any of their powers to push their own politics. The big mover was the Speaker of the House. Under the theory that was developing/may have been developing at the time, the Speaker would be real head of government while the President and his Cabinet were, basically, elected civil servants doing Congress's bidding.

And one final thought. A few months ago I posted that, as I see things, the U.S. could convert to a parliamentary state without so much as changing one law, no Amendments needed. I fully admit that I don't think that is likely. I also fully admit that even if a determine majority of Americans wanted a parliamentary system, Amendments would be necessary to protect their views after they lose an election.

As I see things there are very few differences between the paper powers of the U.S. President and the British Monarchy. The difference between the two offices is one of practical power and motivation. The U.S. President has all of his powers as practical powers and can motivate himself. By that I mean, that unless the President is forbidden to do something or required to do something in only one way, he can do pretty much whatever he wants. The Queen on the other hand as few practical powers that she can use at her discretion. And the motivation to use all of her actual and theoretical powers comes from the PM's office and not herself.

If the Queen woke up one day and decided to start doing things her own way, there would be a major problem, at best. When the President wakes up one morning and starts doing things his way, we call that Tuesday. And most Americans expect that to happen every January 20th in the year after the Summer Olympics.

My theory in a nutshell is this, there is nothing stopping the President from acting just like the Queen. Whether he decides to accept advice only from the Speaker or from another House leader, no one is going to stop him and no one can stop him. If a few presidents in a row only listen to House leaders, that could set a real precedent, even create a de facto parliamentary system. If that happens the only substantiative differences between the U.S. and the U.K. is that the U.S. elects its head of state and the U.K. allows its cabinet secretaries to sit in Parliament.

Again, I admit that my campaign to be elected Pop will bear fruit before that happens.

I actually find this alternate organic development more interesting than something put into place in the constitution. It could be a cool alt-path for the US or a US-like system in a TL.
 
South Africa is not a parliamentary state. Its legislature is elected for a fixed term of five years. The President is then elected by the legislature for five years. He is both head of government and of state. (The Chief Justice presides over the election of the President; there is a few hours' gap between the expiration of the previous term and the new President's election, unless of course the legislature fails to elect promptly.)

In a parliamentary state, the legislature can remove the executive by majority vote at any time for any reason. In South Africa, the legislature must have a 2/3 vote to remove for "serious violation [or] misconduct [or] inability".

Well, that I did not know. What happens if a majority of the legislature opposes the President, but still less than 2/3rds? Does the country face a U.S. style gridlock and risk of shutdown or can something else be done?

Also, there is no requirement that the President be "the leader of the largest party". If the largest party does not have a majority, an alliance of other parties could elect the President. Or the largest party might support a candidate of another allied party.

That is the same in any parliamentary states. Most, if not all, of the states that use proportional representation call that a norm.


A parliament is normally in session except for brief intervals at elections. Congress, traditionally, was out of session for most of the time.

The bedrock principle of parliamentary government is that the executive serves at the pleasure of the legislature, which can be withdrawn at any time - and is at all times under the threat of instant withdrawal.

Well if you really want to talk about tradition, than the old English Parliament was traditionally only in session for one day every few years, with the length of that day being somewhat negotiable.

Since I have always been talking about a possible, if utterly implausible possibility, than there is nothing stopping Congress from meeting continuously. In fact there was a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential recess appointments that determined that the Senate was never actually out of session for more than a few minutes over a period of several years.

Just because they aren't sitting, doesn't mean they aren't in session.


Very odd that; are there any other parliamentary states with such a rule? WI the ruling party has a very narrow majority? Are there immediate by-elections? WI a by-election goes against the incumbent party? ISTM that this rule requires all prospective ministers to represent only very safe seats.

In any case, a minister must first be elected to the legislature, unlike the U.S. or any Congressional state.

There are neither by elections nor safe seats in the Netherlands. There is also little or no precedent for a "ruling party." I'm not sure that there has been a single party government under proportional representation. The entire country is one district for election by Part List PR. When someone resigns, whether to be a minister or for any other reason, they are replaced by the next eligible candidate from the party's list.

And if the ministers must first be elected, then are the U.K., Canada, and to a growing extent Australia not parliamentary states anymore? In all three jurisdictions people are announced as ministers and then appointed to parliament to keep their seats. No elections. Bob Carr was appointed as a Senator specifically to serve as foreign minister and has resigned now that he is no longer in ministerial office.

There are more flavors of parliamentary government than the Westminster system. And even the Westminster system has more than one flavour.
 
South Africa is not a parliamentary state.

That's not right. South Africa is a parliamentary system. So sayeth Wikipedia (check under the politics of South Africa article and the Parliamentary System article) and so says the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) website: http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/CtrlParlementaire/2291_F.htm

Since the IPU is actually formed by the parliaments of the world themselves I'm sure they must know to classify their member bodies unless the world's parliaments don't really know how to classify the political systems they are actually a part of and work with day in and day out.



Its legislature is elected for a fixed term of five years.

And so is the parliament of the United Kingdom. The UK now has fixed election terms unless a no confidence motion actually forces the dissolution of Parliament. The Prime Minister can't call snap elections anymore.

Plus, South Africa's constitution does allow for an early dissolution of parliament according to that same inter-parliamentary union website; the parliament must be dissolved after three years by the President if a majority of the members of parliament adopt a resolution on dissolution. Parliament can also be dissolved by the acting president if the office of president is vacant and the National Assembly fails to elect a new president within 30 days. None of these provisions have come into play simply because they haven't been needed as yet.

I think pternagy is right, you seem to be taking the definition of what is in actuality only a form of parliamentary system (the Westminster parliamentary system of the 1990s since you seem to believe that having fixed terms is incompatible with a parliamentary system; outside of the UK, the change to fixed terms for the House of Commons under the Fixed-terms Parliaments Act 2011 went pretty much unnoticed) and using it to define all parliamentary systems which results in the confusion of saying South Africa is not a parliamentary system (when it quite clearly is) and saying that such restrictions as needing a 2/3rds majority to remove the executive is not a feature. Many parliamentary systems require certain majorities for certain things to happen (think of Australia's system of amendment) and in South Africa's case a president can be removed if the majority of parliament votes to dissolve parliament after three years ---> new elections for parliament means new elections for President.
 
i know the young US took a lot of examples from the United Provinces (the declaration of independence for example is modelled (or copied) after the dutch declaration of independence in the 80 year war). Maybe they follow the dutch example a little more and install an identical kind of government (remember the Stadtholder is pretty much a hereditary president with limited powers, not a king).

Not sure if it would be possible though.
So washington doesn't become king or president but maybe Stateholder?
 
Last edited:
i know the young US took a lot of examples from the United Provinces (the declaration of independence for example is modelled (or copied) after the dutch declaration of independence in the 80 year war). Maybe they follow the dutch example a little more and install an identical kind of government (remember the Stadtholder is pretty much a hereditary president with limited powers, not a king).

Not sure if it would be possible though.
So washington doesn't become king or president but maybe Stateholder?

While a very interesting idea, I would see it as a total non-starter in anything resembling OTL. I just cannot see the same people who refused to give the federal government the power to tax anyone for well over a decade letting the "federal" government or even just George Washington run their domestic affairs as Governor.

Washington could have been elected president for as long as he liked. I doubt he could have won one term as Governor of Delaware, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia all at once.
 
I seem to recall hearing about extensive Senate debates during Washington's first term over how the "advise and consent" function should work. Two proposals that were seriously considered:

1. Cabinet secretaries should have tenure in office: they would serve subject to good behavior, and dismissing them for cause would require the consent of the Senate.

2. The Senate's role in cabinet oversight should be ongoing: rather than merely confirming an appointment when it is made, the Senate should be able to withdraw its consent later and fire a cabinet secretary directly.

If both of these prosposals had passed and become part of the common understanding of how the Constitution should be read, it would very much nerf the powers of the President. Since the Senate would be able to fire cabinet secretaries and could block attempts by the President to fire them, the cabinet would effectively work for the Senate rather than for the President.
 
Top