as the title says how to get a United States with a parliamentary system what's the best chance here will be after independence or say the secession of the Confederacy but with severe repercussions with secession
How do we have the United States with a parliamentary system of government?
- Thread starter ahmed1ghoneim
- Start date
The British government not just listened to Edmund Burke, but also adopted his policies.
POD: The legislation creating the post of Secretary of State does not amalgamate it with the existing Secretary of Foreign Affairs position, but is a separate post with a distinctive role that over time evolves towards a prime ministerial role in the modern French sense more than the British one?
Washington dies after the ratification but before the first election.
Ben Franklin takes a LOT of advice from congresional committe chairs
Ben Franklin takes a LOT of advice from congresional committe chairs
The Electoral College is the Congress in joint session rather than just being constituted that way (this does not immediately create a parliamentary system but it more closely ties the executive to the legislature), the President is then chosen by the leadership in Congress, these legislators are allowed into Cabinet with a French trick to avoid a separation of powers violation (they resign and their seats are held by substitutes while they are in government)
Or just don't have separation of powers be adopted as a constitutional principle in the first place.
Having the head of state be a crowned monarch doesn't automatically lead to a parliamentary system. It can easily evolve into one as the executive arm of the government holds itself more and more responsible to the more democratically legitimate leadership of the legislature, but that's not a guarantee: empowering the people could just as well mean enforcing elections to a post still powerful in its own right, or indeed be dispensed with.
Andrew Johnson is convicted. Congress becomes more aggressive in future disputes with the Presidency. Eventually the job isn't worth a warm bucket of spit so they simply get rid of it and make the Speaker the head of the country.
You could have an elected non-executive president and upper and lower house with a prime minister and cabinet.
This is similar to what Ireland has.
Ireland has
Non-president
Executive prime minister and cabinet
An upper and lower house(Dail and senate)
Independent judiciary
A written constitution
A supreme court.
Hard to see the states agreeing to this if the war of independence worked out the same as otl.
You could have a treaty where the King remains the head of state instead of a non-executive president.
May even the US as a British dominion and progress towards full independence like Ireland.
A governor-general/viceroy can stand in for the King due to the distance from Britain.
en.wikipedia.org
Fixed-term elections would not work well with a parliamentary system.
Later strict plenty party whips will be needed as was introduced to the parliament system by the Irish mp Charles Stuart Parnell.
This is similar to what Ireland has.
Ireland has
Non-president
Executive prime minister and cabinet
An upper and lower house(Dail and senate)
Independent judiciary
A written constitution
A supreme court.
Hard to see the states agreeing to this if the war of independence worked out the same as otl.
You could have a treaty where the King remains the head of state instead of a non-executive president.
May even the US as a British dominion and progress towards full independence like Ireland.
A governor-general/viceroy can stand in for the King due to the distance from Britain.
President of Ireland - Wikipedia
Later strict plenty party whips will be needed as was introduced to the parliament system by the Irish mp Charles Stuart Parnell.
Last edited:
This is an interesting idea. I would suggest that a model of a ceremonial President (Ireland, Germany, Israel) and a powerful legislative figure is the most plausible. For example, imagine that Washington dies shortly before his election and Adams becomes President. While I have great admiration for Adams, I do not see him having the gravitas to become a truly powerful President. This may cause the countries early demise, but it is at least plausible that the President become ceremonial and the Speaker of the House becomes the head of government.
However, I think the figure who truly caused the powerful Presidency was Jackson. For example, Jackson was the first President to veto a law on political grounds. Thus imagine this POD.
In 1824 Henry Clay chooses to back William Crawford and run as his VP (I recognize this is implausible as Clay was more closely aligned to Adams). Crawford is elected President but his health quickly collapses. Clay through force of personality re-conceptualizes the role of VP as the President of the Senate, guiding and structuring, Senate votes and also effectively runs the executive by chairing cabinet meetings when Crawford is suffering ill health (which is always). The Crawford/Clay Party, called the National Republicans uses this unified control to implement Clay's American System, chartering a Second National Bank of the United States as well as high tariffs and numerous internal improvements. The tariffs cause South Carolina to rebel in 1830. Clay is credited with successfully repressing the rebellion and maintaining the union. In 1832, Crawford retires, adhering to Washington's two term rule for Presidents. Clay ensures that the National Republicans nominate another non-entity for President continuing the practice of a powerful VP. When Clay finally retires in the mid 1840s due to age, the opposing political party, the Jeffersonian-Democrats follow the same practice of nominating a ceremonial figure for President while ensuring that real leadership is provided by the Vice President. However, these figures become mired in a corruption scandal and lose Congressional Confidence. Facing impeachment they both resign, causing new elections and establishing the precedent that when a Vice President loses the confidence of Congress he must resign and new elections occur.
However, I think the figure who truly caused the powerful Presidency was Jackson. For example, Jackson was the first President to veto a law on political grounds. Thus imagine this POD.
In 1824 Henry Clay chooses to back William Crawford and run as his VP (I recognize this is implausible as Clay was more closely aligned to Adams). Crawford is elected President but his health quickly collapses. Clay through force of personality re-conceptualizes the role of VP as the President of the Senate, guiding and structuring, Senate votes and also effectively runs the executive by chairing cabinet meetings when Crawford is suffering ill health (which is always). The Crawford/Clay Party, called the National Republicans uses this unified control to implement Clay's American System, chartering a Second National Bank of the United States as well as high tariffs and numerous internal improvements. The tariffs cause South Carolina to rebel in 1830. Clay is credited with successfully repressing the rebellion and maintaining the union. In 1832, Crawford retires, adhering to Washington's two term rule for Presidents. Clay ensures that the National Republicans nominate another non-entity for President continuing the practice of a powerful VP. When Clay finally retires in the mid 1840s due to age, the opposing political party, the Jeffersonian-Democrats follow the same practice of nominating a ceremonial figure for President while ensuring that real leadership is provided by the Vice President. However, these figures become mired in a corruption scandal and lose Congressional Confidence. Facing impeachment they both resign, causing new elections and establishing the precedent that when a Vice President loses the confidence of Congress he must resign and new elections occur.
That sounds like going beyond what the op asked.
A parliamentary system does not in itself means a more powerful central government.
A system where the VP loses the confidence of the legislative assembly leading to a general election could lead to a lot of elections like in countries like Italy and unstable governments.
I am not sure how easy it would be to have a two-party system in a country as large as the USA.
I agree that a parliamentary system does not necessarily result in a more powerful central government. However, a system where the head of government must constantly maintain the confidence of the legislature is the key feature that makes a parliamentary system. Sometimes this leads to substantial instability (Israel or Italy) but in other cases the government typically stays in place for long periods (e.g. Britain and Germany). Typically instability seems highly correlated with proportional representation (each party gets a percentage of the seats in parliament corresponding to their percentage of the vote). The US Constitution both IOTL and ITTL would involve single member constituencies and first past the post elections which typically correlate with fairly stable governments.
This combined with making a confirmation votes a bicameral affair, could lead to a hybrid parliamentary/separation of powers system.
Andrew Johnson tries to use executive power to completely stop and end Reconstruction.
Combine that with Grant wanting a easy job and not wanting to work hard, radical Republicans get enough support to amend the constitution and create a parliamentary system to strip the executive branch of its power.
Combine that with Grant wanting a easy job and not wanting to work hard, radical Republicans get enough support to amend the constitution and create a parliamentary system to strip the executive branch of its power.
Ireland has a proportional representation voting system and for the most part, post-independence has not had unstable governments.
Single transferable vote - Wikipedia
Agree there are many factors associated with instability. Hence why I said PR is correlated with unstable governments, not that it directly leads to it. I would agree that first past the post has some undesirable features. Single transferable vote does have some interesting features.Ireland has a proportional representation voting system and for the most part, post-independence has not had unstable governments.
First past the post system in the UK has to lead to parties like the liberal getting 26% of the vote and less than 10 seats in parliament.Single transferable vote - Wikipedia
Easiest way? Have Britain defeat the American rebels and their French, Spanish & Dutch allies. It very nearly happened.