AHC: USA with a Collective Presidency

The Professor · Nov 10, 2016

So how can we end up with collective presidency of the United States of America?
How would it initially be set up?
How would it evolve?
Would each "President-Councillor" have set roles?
Assuming the US still expands westward, how does having a collective presidency influence borders and formation of states?

Drunkrobot · Nov 10, 2016

They might go for some sort of 'triumvirate' system with the executive shared between three people. Perhaps each party puts forward two candidates, and the party who wins the election gets two seats, and the second place party only gets a seat for their primary candidate. So, effectively, the executive is split between two 'majority' candidates and one 'minority' candidate. These three people can have the same sort of powers as OTL President, but using those powers requires the support of one of the other co-presidents. This would mean that usually the majority party gets their two guys pushing forward ideas, but the largest minority still has some chance of effecting change by swaying one of the two. This setup would, in theory, encourage voters to support candidates who are moderate and can work across party lines. And as the constitution has a focus on checks and balances to ensure no one person can become a dictator, this triumvirate could have more power on total than the OTL presidency, with its internal self regulation.

Minchandre · Nov 10, 2016

Drunkrobot said:
They might go for some sort of 'triumvirate' system with the executive shared between three people. Perhaps each party puts forward two candidates, and the party who wins the election gets two seats, and the second place party only gets a seat for their primary candidate. So, effectively, the executive is split between two 'majority' candidates and one 'minority' candidate. These three people can have the same sort of powers as OTL President, but using those powers requires the support of one of the other co-presidents. This would mean that usually the majority party gets their two guys pushing forward ideas, but the largest minority still has some chance of effecting change by swaying one of the two. This setup would, in theory, encourage voters to support candidates who are moderate and can work across party lines. And as the constitution has a focus on checks and balances to ensure no one person can become a dictator, this triumvirate could have more power on total than the OTL presidency, with its internal self regulation.

Even though it was painfully obvious that they would develop, the US government is ostensibly constructed without the assumption of parties.

My first thought would be 2 presidents, based on the Roman consuls.

If an early president is very weak, you might get party fixers choosing the cabinet and having some portion of the cabinet serve effectively as an executive council. If power sharing is rejiggered, you might get the President, President of the Senate (=Vice President), and Speaker of the House having equalish power and having to work together to do big stuff.

It also wouldn't have too much effect on formation of new states, since that's almost exclusively handled by Congress.

Drunkrobot · Nov 10, 2016

Minchandre said:
It also wouldn't have too much effect on formation of new states, since that's almost exclusively handled by Congress.

It certainly may have some effect on the Louisiana Purchase. It's fairly ironic how Small Government-centric Thomas Jefferson basically doubled the size of the United States without really talking to anybody or asking them if he was allowed to do it. Now, if he had to consider it while Alexander Hamilton sat in the same chair as him...

Jasen777 · Nov 10, 2016

The Presidency was designed with everyone knowing Washington would get it. If Washington was out of the picture they could easily come up with something else. The Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could be a model, like how they modeled the EC off of Maryland's EC for electing state senators.

Minchandre · Nov 10, 2016

Drunkrobot said:
It certainly may have some effect on the Louisiana Purchase. It's fairly ironic how Small Government-centric Thomas Jefferson basically doubled the size of the United States without really talking to anybody or asking them if he was allowed to do it. Now, if he had to consider it while Alexander Hamilton sat in the same chair as him...

I'd classify expansion as different from admitting states, but that's definitely a good point. Especially considering how stiff the opposition was to it, especially from the Federalists.

David T · Nov 10, 2016

See https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...posal-for-two-presidents.319699/#post-9324697 for John Calhoun's proposal for a dual presidency

The Professor · Nov 16, 2016

Some interesting ideas.
Anyone want to expand further?

The Professor · Nov 21, 2016

Odd, I would have thought this to be of more interest to discuss.

I could see a system arise if George Washington failed to survive the ARW. I'm inclined to view a triumvirate of sorts - perhaps divided into chief military officer, chief justice, and chief congressman?

Fabius Maximus · Nov 21, 2016

The Professor said:
So how can we end up with collective presidency of the United States of America?
How would it initially be set up?
How would it evolve?
Would each "President-Councillor" have set roles?
Assuming the US still expands westward, how does having a collective presidency influence borders and formation of states?

Supreme Court judicial overreach gets even more out-of-hand, until the nine Justices become the country's leaders.

jahenders · Nov 21, 2016

The Professor said:
So how can we end up with collective presidency of the United States of America?
How would it initially be set up?
How would it evolve?
Would each "President-Councillor" have set roles?
Assuming the US still expands westward, how does having a collective presidency influence borders and formation of states?

You could potentially have an evolution of the original VP system, where the VP was from a different party. You keep that, but expand it so that they have specific powers and you maybe add the 3rd vote getter to the mix. You then have a triumvirate of sorts. One is President and has the true power, but perhaps there's a mechanism where if the other two agree they can overrule him.

Alstein · Nov 21, 2016

The Professor said:
Odd, I would have thought this to be of more interest to discuss.

I could see a system arise if George Washington failed to survive the ARW. I'm inclined to view a triumvirate of sorts - perhaps divided into chief military officer, chief justice, and chief congressman?

I think the system would be as unstable as the Consulate was in Revolutionary France, or slavery politics would render the institution ineffective.

Alcsentre Calanice · Nov 21, 2016

Alstein said:
I think the system would be as unstable as the Consulate was in Revolutionary France, or slavery politics would render the institution ineffective.

The Consulate wasn't unstable. It was too strong, that was the problem which led to its abolition.

The Professor · Nov 23, 2016

jahenders said:
You could potentially have an evolution of the original VP system, where the VP was from a different party. You keep that, but expand it so that they have specific powers and you maybe add the 3rd vote getter to the mix. You then have a triumvirate of sorts. One is President and has the true power, but perhaps there's a mechanism where if the other two agree they can overrule him.

Interesting. That could help override the tendency towards 2 bigtent parties.