DBWI: The US Presidency remains powerful

Ak-84

Banned
Unlike the basically ceremonial office it is today, until the late 19th century the US Presidency was both the Chief Executive and Head of Government. Until US Grant's term. Sam Tilden OTH and his successors seemed content to let the legislature make the policy, which led to the situation as elucidated by the great Constitutional Scholar and President, Woodrow Wilson* that but the gist of all policy is decided by legislative, not by executive, while the legislature is guided by the United States Council; the Speaker, the minority and majority leader in both house and the Vice President.

Could the US have maintained a Presidential form of Government, or was the office of President, like the Kings of England, destined to lose power?

How would it change the relations between the Federal Government and the states? Congress has expanded its powers jealously. Can't see the Commerce Clause being used so expansively.

Maybe the VP would be elected on the same ticket, instead of being elected by the Senate due to the whole "electors don't cast votes for VP" convention.,
OTH, the Presidency would be for serious politicians, not retirees like LBJ** , worthies like Eisenhower or prominent citizens like the current holder, Donald Trump***.

*OOC He did actually say that since in the years after the Civil War the prestige of the office fell until TR revised it.
** Man was a great Majority Leader and VP, but frankly after his heart attack following the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the Blair House was the only place he was going
***Well he was the price the Senators Clinton demanded when it seemed clear that Pence would get the VPship.
 
You could have Wilson win much closer in 1916 (maybe have someone besides the conservative Fairbanks run against him?). It might convince him that such radical ideas would not be too popular among Americans, or you could just have him not become president all together.
 
The loss of power was probably inevitable. Americans are generally wary of too much power in the hands of a single man and for that reason the presidency would almost certainly be a weak position.

It’s probably for the best. As you mentioned, a lot of the presidents since 1900 have been retiring officeholders or prominent citizens. Can’t imagine many of them doing too well if they were as powerful as, say, Lincoln was.
 
One POD would be to avoid having Andrew Johnson being removed from office and the acting presidency of Ben Wade.

(OOC: I just realized this is probably the post 1900 forum, I can't check mid-post. This is very difficult to get after at the latest the Teddy Roosevelt administration, you pretty much need the federal government to collapse and be replaced during the Great Depression)

A chief executive who acted independently of the legislature, at least as much as a Third Republic French president, could have a huge impact. Up to 1867, strong presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Polk, and Lincoln could really alter the direction of the country. Plus you would get a completely different set of officeholders.
 
OOC: yeah, post 1900. I was misled by the first response. Given how different a post 1900 POD would have to be, should this be moved to pre 1900, or should we cobble together a post 1900 POD somehow and I delete my previous post?
 
If we honestly look at the performance of presidential systems in the rest of the world, I think we can safely say that a continuation of the US Presidential system would have led to collapse. Throughout Latin America, Africa, and Asia we see that Presidential systems concentrate power in the hands of a strongman, who inevitably uses that power to enrich himself and is finally taken down by the military or the courts, leading to a cycle of instability.

A United States that maintained a Presidential System would likely have fallen to Communist revolution, given how strong the SLP was getting before the big switch.
 
Top