Crazy Boris
Banned
It would be interesting to see different states using different forms of government, or would the constitution standardize everything?
AHC: More different kinds of democratic governments by 1900?
- Thread starter Conan
- Start date
It would be interesting to see different states using different forms of government, or would the constitution standardize everything?
The federal constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government and requires congress to approve the (initial) constitution for any newly proposed state that wishes to join the union. Beyond that, the states are theoretically free to experiment and there is a thin band of variance in state governments today.
Several states used to have executives chosen by the legislature, but that had stopped entirely before the civil war, I think.
May we have a list? Or, at least, be directed to suitable resources?
The Avalon Project has the assorted former state constitutions.
sounds wonderfully . . . fluid!
Might you quickly describe the 2 or 3 biggest advantages?
I'm very skeptical sortition has any chance of success. A major belief of the liberal revolutions that brought about modern democracy was meritocracy, that an army or state bureaucracy should be run by the most competent person regardless of birth, rank, or status. When you're sending an army off to battle, having it be run by some random guy you dragged in off the street isn't really any better than having it be run by the king's inbred cousin.
Even if you limited eligibility with the goal of ensuring competency (say, by only allowing someone with a college degree to hold office), you could easily wind up with a situation where someone who has spent their life becoming a master engineer suddenly has to run the foreign ministry. Theres a reason that in spite of all the classical LARPing both the French and American revolutionaries loved to do, neither group ever seriously considered it as a means of running a modern state. If anything, I could see a more moderate form of technocracy taking root somewhere in the Western world. Say, for example, that rather than a civilian leader choosing who runs the army, the army itself selects the person they deem most qualified for the role.
I'm surprised you don't see more examples of collective executives in 19th century history. It seems to me like a reasonable way to limit the power of corrupt or incompetent executives, as well as letting them divide their efforts during times of crisis. It may be common knowledge on here, but for about 15 years between the American Revolution and the Constitution, my home state of PA operated this way. Each county got one representative on the executive council, and they chose a President of Pennsylvania. This was probably the primary inspiration for the French Directory (whose failure I suspect probably turned a lot of people off from this style of government).
For America specifically, I'm also surprised the New England town meeting form of local government never made it outside that region. Given the westward settlement of a lot of New Englanders, as well as the isolation and desire for local control common in the Old West, I could see town-level direct democracy growing popular across the Great Plains. A small 19th century American town is practically the perfect environment for direct democracy to thrive, and perhaps you could see modern anarchists talking favorably about American towns that run their affairs locally and collectively.
Even if you limited eligibility with the goal of ensuring competency (say, by only allowing someone with a college degree to hold office), you could easily wind up with a situation where someone who has spent their life becoming a master engineer suddenly has to run the foreign ministry. Theres a reason that in spite of all the classical LARPing both the French and American revolutionaries loved to do, neither group ever seriously considered it as a means of running a modern state. If anything, I could see a more moderate form of technocracy taking root somewhere in the Western world. Say, for example, that rather than a civilian leader choosing who runs the army, the army itself selects the person they deem most qualified for the role.
I'm surprised you don't see more examples of collective executives in 19th century history. It seems to me like a reasonable way to limit the power of corrupt or incompetent executives, as well as letting them divide their efforts during times of crisis. It may be common knowledge on here, but for about 15 years between the American Revolution and the Constitution, my home state of PA operated this way. Each county got one representative on the executive council, and they chose a President of Pennsylvania. This was probably the primary inspiration for the French Directory (whose failure I suspect probably turned a lot of people off from this style of government).
For America specifically, I'm also surprised the New England town meeting form of local government never made it outside that region. Given the westward settlement of a lot of New Englanders, as well as the isolation and desire for local control common in the Old West, I could see town-level direct democracy growing popular across the Great Plains. A small 19th century American town is practically the perfect environment for direct democracy to thrive, and perhaps you could see modern anarchists talking favorably about American towns that run their affairs locally and collectively.
- Direct Democracy in the vein of Direct/Real Democracysounds wonderfully . . . fluid!
Might you quickly describe the 2 or 3 biggest advantages?
- Liquid Democracy also enables you to "vote in someone else" to vote for you. This helps the low-information or low-time voter. Want to vote but don't trust your intel on voting? No time to vote? Confer your vote to someone else you trust.
Seems like something between Direct Democracies and Representative Republics, and I find it interesting.
There's also the NBER/University of Maryland State Constitutions Project which is much more comprehensive.
This also allows to have an all party government with no opposition where the number of positions in government is proportional to the number of votes a party receives / seats it wins.
The US does feel very "Roman" in that regards - lots of different people with power of magistracy, directly elected separately to each other.
Speaking of Rome, some of the constitutional quirks of the 1848 Roman Republic, such as a 3-member directory, could've been implemented on a larger scale in a federal Italy, maybe.
Hmm, maybe a co-regency between Sardinia, Tuscany and the Two Sicilies? Or maybe swap one of them out for the Pope?
Sounds a little like corporations and stockholders, although hopefully without so many large, institutional holders!
As far as making a judgment call on whether different forms of democracy “deliver the goods,” how about drawing an analogy from computer system upgrades and the 4 P’s —
1) Pilot program,
2) Piecemeal,
3) Parallel, and
4) Plunge. Don’t!
And we might also add, clarity of feedback.
For example, an “Omnibus” Crime Bill or “Comprehensive” Energy Bill might do so many different things, in pretty complex ways, that even if I’m trying to be very honest with my readers and/or fellow citizens . . . might honestly be hard to tell if the damn thing is working or not!
1) Pilot program,
2) Piecemeal,
3) Parallel, and
4) Plunge. Don’t!
And we might also add, clarity of feedback.
For example, an “Omnibus” Crime Bill or “Comprehensive” Energy Bill might do so many different things, in pretty complex ways, that even if I’m trying to be very honest with my readers and/or fellow citizens . . . might honestly be hard to tell if the damn thing is working or not!