In thinking about forms of government, there's a scenario I've often wondered about. This may be too big a variable and create too many butterflies to be able to build any kind of AH from, but I'm curious to see if anyone has any input on it anyway. Here it is:
The Founding Fathers of the United States had a great respect for the Roman Republic, and the governmental system they set up owes a great deal to the pre-Imperial Roman system. What if they had carried it a step further, and the Constitution provided for, not a single President with a four-year term of office, but a pair of Consuls to serve only a year? The Consuls would have to be elected independently (so they couldn't pair up and conspire to take over together--at least, not officially), and any given Consul could have as many terms of office as he could get elected to, but could never serve for two consecutive years. (These were safeguards built into the Roman system to prevent any one person from becoming too powerful, though in the Roman system there were always ways around the safeguards. One would assume that with our written Constitution, and with Congress and the Supreme Court unchanged, it would be harder to do that here.)
How might this affect the running of the American government and the course of history? Would we be more likely to balance the two main parties by keeping them both at the top, or to give both offices to the same party most years? If there was balance, would it help things run more smoothly, or would there be so much discord nothing would ever get accomplished? Would there even be political parties, or would this system discourage such a thing from developing?
The Founding Fathers of the United States had a great respect for the Roman Republic, and the governmental system they set up owes a great deal to the pre-Imperial Roman system. What if they had carried it a step further, and the Constitution provided for, not a single President with a four-year term of office, but a pair of Consuls to serve only a year? The Consuls would have to be elected independently (so they couldn't pair up and conspire to take over together--at least, not officially), and any given Consul could have as many terms of office as he could get elected to, but could never serve for two consecutive years. (These were safeguards built into the Roman system to prevent any one person from becoming too powerful, though in the Roman system there were always ways around the safeguards. One would assume that with our written Constitution, and with Congress and the Supreme Court unchanged, it would be harder to do that here.)
How might this affect the running of the American government and the course of history? Would we be more likely to balance the two main parties by keeping them both at the top, or to give both offices to the same party most years? If there was balance, would it help things run more smoothly, or would there be so much discord nothing would ever get accomplished? Would there even be political parties, or would this system discourage such a thing from developing?
I always thought a year seemed pretty short--especially in an ancient country like the Roman Republic, when anyone who wanted to vote had to travel all the way to Rome itself to do it. But, that's what the Romans did, so that's what I'm assuming for the Founding Fathers. Of course, there's nothing to stop later leaders from saying, "Okay, this isn't really working. Time for an Amendment."
