AHC: U.S. largely same political system, but separate head of government and head of state.

Maybe Woodrow Wilson is healthier or has more success earlier in moving U.S. toward more parliamentary system. Or maybe something develops more informally?

Bonus points if heads of government like FDR or Reagan are still beloved leaders (although controversial and with valid criticism!).
 
1) Wilson is more successful, president largely downshifted (as well as Senate to only questions that directly relate to federalism)

OR . . .

2) Someone else serves role as Head of State. Maybe Senate stays the same and elects Ambassador of the People, and this position turns out to be surprisingly effective and develops its own traditions.
 

orwelans II

Banned
Maybe right off the bat as they create the constitution? What about the Vice President being the one to head the cabinet instead or in addition to heading the Senate?
 
. . . for literally all the amendments
The 14th Amendment proclaimed equal rights, but courts ruled that this applied to corporate personhood (!) and ruled that separate but equal for African-Americans was just fine, including the Supreme Court. Yeah, these days I'm rather down on the Court.

The 22nd Amendment hardwired in the tradition of presidents only serving two terms.

Maybe the 26th Amendment stating that younger persons 18 years of age and older having full rights to vote had and still has the most potential for far-reaching changes.

But overall, not seeing radical change.
 
The 14th Amendment proclaimed equal rights, but courts ruled that this applied to corporate personhood (!) and ruled that separate but equal for African-Americans was just fine, including the Supreme Court. Yeah, these days I'm rather down on the Court.

The 22nd Amendment hardwired in the tradition of presidents only serving two terms.

Maybe the 26th Amendment stating that younger persons 18 years of age and older having full rights to vote had and still has the most potential for far-reaching changes.

But overall, not seeing radical change.
So let's just forget the 17th, which established direct elections for Senators. Or the 19th, which finally allowed women to vote.
 
So let's just forget the 17th, which established direct elections for Senators. Or the 19th, which finally allowed women to vote.
Most of the radical changes in Constitution, like the seventeenth or fourteenth amendments, granted rights to citizens rather than making structural changes to the government. Even the twelfth and seventeenth amendments just made (relatively) minor adjustments to the manner of elections after it became clear that the current process was convoluted/undemocratic. This is nothing compared to radically changing the nature of the executive branch.
 
Most of the radical changes in Constitution, like the seventeenth or fourteenth amendments, granted rights to citizens rather than making structural changes to the government. Even the twelfth and seventeenth amendments just made (relatively) minor adjustments to the manner of elections after it became clear that the current process was convoluted/undemocratic. This is nothing compared to radically changing the nature of the executive branch.
Fair enough, but to return to the core discussion, this lack of extreme transportation isn't caused by a uniquely American opposition to change, but by a perceived lack of necessity for such change.
 
Fair enough, but to return to the core discussion, this lack of extreme transportation isn't caused by a uniquely American opposition to change, but by a perceived lack of necessity for such change.
True. I think the best way to do that is to have a president (or, better yet, a series of presidents) that abuses their power to the extant that people become convinced that the only way to stop someone from doing it again is to split up the executive branch. Huey Long could be good for this. As for an informal arrangement, maybe a serious of weak presidents and powerful behind-the-scenes vice presidents could start a "co-presidency" tradition.
 
. . . (or, better yet, a series of presidents) that abuses their power to the extant that people become convinced that the only way to stop someone from doing it again is to split up the executive branch. . .
Yes, as one possible TL.

I also like the idea that Wilson is succcessful to the point of at least getting a lot of fellow citizens to think about it. And, yes, maybe the initial impetus is an unpopular president.

But, the Senate decides to go with a 'People's Ambassador.' The House also votes (perhaps hoping it will clip the president's wings). The president, now more unpopular, feels forced to sign it since it was his idea to start with, plus he thinks the person will be ineffectual.

But the person proves to be surprisingly effective.

Let's say a Republican majority Senate in the 1920s want to make it work and look for a well-respected older Democrat. And that rather becomes the tradition. The Senate finds a well-respected individual in the other party, usually older, but not always. And this individual is generally accorded two five-year terms, but again not always.

And it works better than almost anyone thought. This person speaks for the nation in times of success and tragedy, as well as uncertainty.
 
I immediately thought of the original system in the US where the runner-up to the presidency became Vice President. I think it's obvious the problem in that. But perhaps that could help establish a foundation for separating the offices. Maybe Congress elects the Vice President, everyone else elects the President (through the electoral college or not). As interesting of a system as it sounds, the issue is actually having that implemented.

https://parliamentum.org/2012/06/02/the-contradictory-presidency/

This is where I got the idea of a Head of State also speaking for the people (for a nation's best traditions and values, for hope) in times of uncertainty.

A very interesting article, although it makes for certain arguable points.
 
Probably the best chance for the de facto establishment of parliamentary government in the US was pre-1900--the Andrew Johnson impeachment. Indeed, that was seen to be the real issue in the impeachment fight by some observers at the time.

Consider what was written by a friend of J.A. Garfield (quoted in W.R. Brock, *An American Crisis: Congress and Reconstruction 1865-1867*, Harper Torchbooks edition, p. 260): "The next great question to be decided in our history is this--is the National Legislature to be as omnipotent in American politics as the English is in English politics?...May we not anticipate a time when the President will no more think of vetoing a bill passed by Congress than the British Crown thinks of doing the same thing?"

Also note the remarks of Wisconsin Senator Timothy Howe on the Tenure of Office Act: when a Democratic Senator referred to the President's "own cabinet" Howe specifically denied that it was such. It was, he said, "the Cabinet of the people." He compared the American and British systems and said of cabinet members that "it is no more necessary that they should be on confidential terms with the president than that they should be on confidential terms with the representatives of the people."(Brock, p. 259)

I doubt that such views would prevail even if Johnson were convicted. Once Grant would be elected president in 1868 (after a few months interim rule by Wade) it seems unlikely that Congressional Republicans would adhere to such an unorthodox position on legislative-executive relations. To the extent that they came to such a position even temporarily in OTL, it was only due to extreme frustration with Johnson's systematic sabotage of Congress's Reconstruction policy (originally, John Sherman did not even want to include Cabinet officers in the Tenure of Office Act). With a popular president of their own party, they would probably revert to more traditional practice.
 
I was thinking of the series of Presidents being so tough idea. Perhaps Lincoln is assassinated and Benjamin "Beast" Butler is his VP. Butler serves 2 terms and the CSA goes full-scale guerilla war on him. Grant is President from 1873-1881, and then (because Charles Guteau is still insane) whoever he supports becomes President and is then assassinated. Fearful of starting the whole mess again (though the South has been cowed by that point) and with a weak VP (maybe Arthur gets sick earlier) Congress decides to pass an amendment curtailing the President's role.
 
I immediately thought of the original system in the US where the runner-up to the presidency became Vice President. I think it's obvious the problem in that. But perhaps that could help establish a foundation for separating the offices. Maybe Congress elects the Vice President, everyone else elects the President (through the electoral college or not). As interesting of a system as it sounds, the issue is actually having that implemented.


A very interesting article, although it makes for certain arguable points.

I liked that system can you see Trump and Hillary? I think you would have more cooperation, you can't get less with out Martial Law!
 
It's nice to see an old article of mine making the rounds.

This is an interesting question indeed, and I thought about it upon reading Woodrow Wilson's favourable comments on parliamentary systems.

It seems to me that the Ineligibility Clause of the US Constitution means that parliamentary government could never have emerged by convention or in practice, because it expressly forbids congressional representatives from serving simultaneously as cabinet secretaries, and cabinet ministers also holding seats in the House of Commons is a key feature of parliamentary systems.

If the US Constitution had not expressly forbid this practice, then it's possible that parliamentary government would have emerged in the US, too.
 
Top