AHC: Most Interesting Alt-USA Constitution

My ideal "coolest" model is one kinda like the UK

A unitary state, but with devolved powers to certain regions (most likely the Deep South, New England, and California). The President is directly elected by a plurality of the vote, and two main executive parties exist. The legislature is Unicameral and has 4-5 main parties as it is (in ATL 2017) an MMP system allowing for PR.
Congress is much more powerful, able to vote out cabinet members and such.

That’d be fascinating, but I feel like the devolved powers would historically go to much different places.

Hell, with a Constitution set up like that, I doubt California would exist as it is in its current form.

New England is a good early contender, as they would probably be very mad that they were not given equal representation as states. Perhaps South Carolina would demand the same treatment under Andrew Jackson (when they threatened secession IOTL) and then the Civil War be averted with most of the South just doing the same (they probably wouldn’t just join South Carolina as a devolved entity because many states in the Confederacy wished to go their own ways after the Civil War and if that’s an upfront option, would have).

Maybe instead of a President a collective executive like the Federal Council in the 1848 Swiss Constitution? The 1776 Pennsylvania constitution had this but it proved unworkable as the councilors were elected one for each county and as the number of counties rapidly increased after 1776 it became too unwieldy. The remedy is to use the Swiss solution: limit the number to a small number like 7 (more than enough for the number of heads of department needed, at least by the needs at the time the constitution is framed) and have them elected by some means from the whole country: either use the electors as with the president or have the lower house of Congress elect them, with the proviso that no two can be from the same state. This avoids giving any single state too much influence.

I love this idea.

How would they be elected? All at the same time?

I was thinking that three could be like members of the UN Security Council, with the three biggest states being guaranteed seats (going by the census, that would be: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina at first and then Pennsylvania, Virginia, and New York for decades to come) and the other four being elected every year.

That could end up really keeping whatever the current political order is strong in the federal branch. You wouldn’t have surprises in the Presidency like Theodore Roosevelt or Donald Trump without significant reform.
 
What about a constitution creating a Venetian-style Republic? President is elected for life, cannot be succeeded by his son; patrician class from which the governors, senators etc are drawn; (admittedly I know very little about the Venetian Republic's government, or if it could even work over the pond). But I always thought that the convoluted way in which one of the councils (I think) was elected was sorta maddeningly cool: For instance (can't remember exact numbers) 60 guys vote for 10 guys; those 10 in turn vote for 30 guys, who vote another 5 guys; and those 5 are on the council.
 
once this proposed systema system of three consuls, it seem very interesting but I forget how it function...


over the reason for having three executives to me absolutely sure of no tyranny as three would agree on things, perhaps however I think that's too inefficient there's there's many reasons why we don't even have barely two-head executives
 
once this proposed systema system of three consuls, it seem very interesting but I forget how it function...


over the reason for having three executives to me absolutely sure of no tyranny as three would agree on things, perhaps however I think that's too inefficient there's there's many reasons why we don't even have barely two-head executives
My triune presidency I saw as essentially either of 2 scenarios:
1) All elected together but by an equal third of the country (eg North, South, Mid) that would get adjusted with expansion.
2) 2/3 year offset elections for 6/9 term term, every election the Executive graduates 3rd to 2nd to 1st Executive in seniority. Each Executive could have specific duties wrt Congress and Government.
Either scenario means VP and running mates don't exist. Party polarisation would be reduced thus allowing functional 3rd Parties.
 
Why would three Presidents (or Consuls, like unter Napoleon) reduce party polarisation? Every three years one Consul has to be elected, and then two parties will compete for this position like in OTL.
I'm not saying two parties are impossible. What I'm saying is that because there's not a single executive competition for each post that makes it up is lowered.
 

Schnozzberry

Gone Fishin'
Donor
One thing that I added to the Constitution in my timeline was a system to create an emergency dictatorship in a similar manner to early Rome. Obviously the potential for abuse is massive, but I think it would be absolutely fascinating to see how such powers would play out, and how the system backfires horribly.
 
The biggest thing I would do is get rid of the Senate. There is no reason for Wyoming voters to have 66 times more representation than California voters. I would have direct elections for the President. And I would allow the constitution to be amended by a 2/3 vote in congress, no need for state legislatures. Members of congress would serve for 4 years, not 2.

The smaller states would never have signed on. Though maybe you could have some prescient clause giving an extra senate seat to states with 20x the population of the smallest.
 
I'm actually doing a relatively realistic TL. The POD is the death of Washington; the OTL office of President was designed with him in mind.
 

kernals12

Banned
The smaller states would never have signed on. Though maybe you could have some prescient clause giving an extra senate seat to states with 20x the population of the smallest.
There's a good question here, what would the small states do if the big states refused equal suffrage? Would they actually try to make it on their own as tiny little countries?
 
There's a good question here, what would the small states do if the big states refused equal suffrage? Would they actually try to make it on their own as tiny little countries?

If they don't come aboard you are just stuck with the AoC. The biggest states - Va, PA, MA - have little in common and a union of the three of them is hardly credible. Framing the COONUS was hard enough even after the "Great Compromise" on representation, and hopeless without it.
 
The biggest thing I would do is get rid of the Senate. There is no reason for Wyoming voters to have 66 times more representation than California voters. I would have direct elections for the President. And I would allow the constitution to be amended by a 2/3 vote in congress, no need for state legislatures. Members of congress would serve for 4 years, not 2.
The problem here is that the small states will scream bloody murder and refuse to ratify such a constitution.
 

kernals12

Banned
The problem here is that the small states will scream bloody murder and refuse to ratify such a constitution.
Screw 'em, I say. Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia had 2/3 of the combined population of the country in 1790 along with its most important cities and ports. They'd get along fine, so fine that it won't be long before the small states are begging to join.
 
That's not true. Canada, the UK, and Mexico all have more than two major political parties, and that's just off the top of my head.
Don’t know too much about Canada admittedly, but the UK is arguably still a two party system, with Labour/Conservative being the only relevant choices since the 1920s
Mexico I have no argument for
 
Top