AHC: Parliamentary America

Woodrow Wilson, prior to his rise in American politics, believed and wrote that a parliamentary system akin to the British system in Westminster would be better for the nation instead of the system in the United States at the time.

My question is would it be feasible and possible for there to be a change to the American system during the lifetime of Wilson from the presidential republic into a parliamentary one? Or is it simply too late & preposterous for this to occur by then?

I'm putting this in the pre-1900 forum as whilst I would want the effect to come into effect during a Wilson presidency (Not necessary, but thought it might make some sense), I'm aware it would take a PoD prior to 1900.

Bonus points if Wilson is involved in this movement to change the constitution.
 
I read long ago that had Andrew Johnson been convicted, it would have led ultimately to a parliamentary system in the US. While I think that's overstated, it certainly would have changed the relationship between the presidency and Congress permanently to the point that the only instances of a strong president would have been those in which the same party held at least the House as well--and both the House and Presidency were in accord.

That would have meant, for example, that Nixon would have been far less effective than he was IOTL (in foreign affairs, at any rate) as an example.

A parliamentary system would have meant a major overhaul of the Constitution. The 12th Amendment would become void, as would significant parts of the original document. The process would have taken years, if not decades, to accomplish if it would have been accomplished at all. I think selling a British form of government (that's how it would have been seen) would have been tough, especially in the Midwest and South.
 
It's way, way too late by Wilson's time. The constitution had been set long before as something that's very difficult to change, and so had the imperial presidency. The latest is probably in the fifty years after independence, assuming you can get a constitutional convention. But, in all likelihood, you'd need to go back before independence. The best bet would be to continue under British rule for longer, and gain independence in a similar manner to Canada. Of course, if you do that, it's likely there will be several Americas, not just one.
 
I do not see Wilson being able to implement anything like this. As others have posted, it is to late to shape the government in that way.
 
It's been a very very long time since I read this, but I believe a parliamentary system (President elected by congress) was in fact the preferred choice of most delegates to the constitutional convention, and that the electoral college and all that has followed came about after its minority proponents threatened to cause procedural mayhem.
 
I'm currently working on a TL where the Thirteen Colonies formed the Commonwealth of America, an independent country closely associated with Great Britain. It uses the Westminster system, and ends up developing a culture without gun fanatics or manifest destiny, and a lot more tea.
 
See https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/RQglKDaK4s0/LJH41-_Rof0J where I discussed the argument of John Kaminski, longtime director of the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution project, that if the controversy between Congress and New York on the impost could have been resolved, there would have been no Constitutional Convention. I quoted Calvin H. Johnson: "Kaminski believes that confederation form of government would have been better for 1787 America than was the strong national government the Constitution ordained. He believes that Congress would have evolved into a Parliamentary form of government with John Jay [Secretary of Foreign Affairs] as prime minister.146 The Founders would have avoided an imperial President, modeled on the King."

I also quoted Johnson's point that "In discussion of Kaminiski's thesis at the Society of Historians of the Early American Republic, Philadelphia, July 25, 2005, Professor Pauline Maier of MIT took issue with the argument that the Congress under the Articles would have evolved into a parliamentary-prime minister system, in part because not even England had evolved into a parliamentary-prime minister system at the time."

As I noted, "Sir Lewis Namier makes this point in a defense of George III: 'in the eighteenth century the King had to intervene in politics and was bound to exercise his political influence, for the party system, which is the basis of Parliamentary government, did not exist. Of the House of Commons itself probably less than half thought and acted in party terms...' *Personalities and Powers: Selected Essays,* p. 43. So the question is whether you would eventually get national parties--at least in the form of loose coalitions of state parties--in the Confederation."

Rich Rostrom objected that "A parliamentary government would have to be at least as unitary as the OTL Constitutional regime. The Congress of the Confederation voted by states, not members." My reply was "By itself, that would not necessarily preclude the eventual development of a party system and parliamentary government. One party could get majorities of the members in most states, and thus dictate who would become 'prime minister.'"
 
Top