Bolder 20th Amendment, U.S. presidents inaugurated Dec. 5th?

When FDR was elected in 1932, he was not inaugurated till March 4, '33. That changed with the 20th Amendment so that for his second term, he was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 1937.

What if the 20th Amendment had been bolder?

Let's say the thinking is that for a normal job, two weeks is enough for transition. And with picking Dec. 5th, it's a sure three weeks, many years running to four weeks, and that's considered plenty of time.

Some implications?

Smoother transition, and Eisenhower in late '52 may not change Truman's foreign policy as much.

And the big one, when Nixon takes office Dec. 5, 1968, well, there's some lines of evidence that as candidate he sabotaged Vietnam peace talks, waving off Thieu and promising him a better deal if and when he was president. (Thieu wasn't real enthusiastic about the talks anyway, because they didn't provide him with much post-war role.) So, with a Dec. 5th date, yes it does give Nixon more leverage while he's initially waving off Thieu, but also, the talks aren't as much of a dead letter when he takes office.
 
Last edited:
Not possible, Even if the Electoral College could meet there is the possiblity that it would go to Congress . In that case I don't think the new congress meets until after the new year.
 
Very valid point you're raising. And yes, I'd rather have the new Congress decide a deadlock than the outgoing Congress.

Okay, I guess I might initially ask, what does the UK do? There might be some parliamentary elections very close between Labour and the Conservatives, and some MP districts still subject to recounts or other challenges.
 
And I'd love to say, Perfect time to get rid of the electoral college!

But . . . I think a pretty good case can be made that Richard Daley, Sr., cheated and helped deliver Illinois for Kennedy in 1960, and Katherine Harris cheated and helped deliver Florida to Bush in 2000. And this was in swing states where the cheating is not going to spill over. If there was a national vote count on who was going to be president, then states which are heavily Democratic or heavily Republican may make a point of pride in getting out the vote and delivering as many votes to their candidate as possible. Probably would, and there's nothing wrong with this. This is democracy. But in some cases, delivering the votes might involve cheating as long as it's not too obvious.
 
Very valid point you're raising. And yes, I'd rather have the new Congress decide a deadlock than the outgoing Congress.

Okay, I guess I might initially ask, what does the UK do? There might be some parliamentary elections very close between Labour and the Conservatives, and some MP districts still subject to recounts or other challenges.

In the UK (and other parliamentary democracies), the government is the government until it's proven that it's lost the confidence of the parliament (usually the lower house; in the UK, the Commons), or it resigns.

If there's a close election, then what usually happens is that the sitting PM will try to ensure that s/he can continue to hold parliament's confidence by putting together a deal with other parties. Whether they're successful in that is likely to determine whether they resign or not before parliament meets, which typically first happens about two weeks after the election. In 2010, Gordon Brown only resigned once it became apparent that the Lib Dems - who were in a position to create a majority for the Conservatives but not by themselves for Labour - were almost certain to cut a deal with the Conservatives of some sort. If he'd wanted to, he could still have waited until that deal was finalised or he could even have waited until parliament met and challenged it to vote down his Labour government. It would have been constitutional to do that but would also have been dreadful politics, giving the impression of wanting to cling on to office long after any moral legitimacy had been lost.

As it was, he resigned when the Con-LD deal imminent but before it was finalised so that the pictures of him exiting Downing Street were taken before darkness fell!
 
Not possible, Even if the Electoral College could meet there is the possiblity that it would go to Congress . In that case I don't think the new congress meets until after the new year.

It is possible but Section 1 of the Amendment would probably need re-writing to make provision for an Electoral College failing to elect a President or VP, unless they were happy to leave that to be sorted out by the old Congress or for Congress to legislate on the matter.
 
Thanks for the information on the UK. I like the aspect of parliamentary democracies in which they're able to make a change when a change is needed. To use an American analogy, it's like firing a head football coach. Not something you want to do all the time, but sometimes a change is needed.

And here we're not talking about any kind of substantial move toward a parliamentary system, just a quicker inauguration and taking the reins after the election.

PS I'd be interested in your views about why Gordon Brown didn't win re-election. Maybe the economy was such in 2010 that hardly anyone could win re-election, and I agreed with Gordo's view that we should not cut for the future, but rather invest for the future. Plus, he mentioned shadow banking as something western governments needed to crack down on and reform. And as a yank, I think he rather met my idea of what a prime minister should be like. But all the same, I kind of gathered he may have rubbed a section of the UK population the wrong way.
 
Last edited:
Have Congress assume office Dec. 3rd.

That way, the new Congress is available in case of a deadlock.

And in the amendment include a one-sentence section: If neither the Electoral College nor the Congress has determined a new President by Dec. 5, the current President continues in office until such time as Congress determines the new President.
 
Top