How would the USA fare under a parliamentary system?

Worth bearing in mind that the UK has just switched to fixed five year terms for elections. (Although whether it will work in practice is in question.)

It should also be remembered that a parliamentary system isn't necessarily proportionate, so there isn't necessarily the super strong drive to multiple parties. A first-past-the-post system tends to mean you get a drive towards a two party system within each constituency. The fact the US has a national two party system is because the President as a national candidate. I think a parliamentary system is much more likely to cause a drive towards geographic parties: I can imagine the federalists lasting as a Northeastern party for example.
 
Worth bearing in mind that the UK has just switched to fixed five year terms for elections. (Although whether it will work in practice is in question.)

It should also be remembered that a parliamentary system isn't necessarily proportionate, so there isn't necessarily the super strong drive to multiple parties. A first-past-the-post system tends to mean you get a drive towards a two party system within each constituency. The fact the US has a national two party system is because the President as a national candidate. I think a parliamentary system is much more likely to cause a drive towards geographic parties: I can imagine the federalists lasting as a Northeastern party for example.
It's not that fixed. If the government fails a confidence motion and no new government can be formed, it's back to snap elections like the old days. And 2/3rds of MPs can call for elections as well.
 
The main reason the US founding fathers preferred a presidential system was a mixture of contrarianism towards Britain and idealism. Though, of course, a great many different potential systems were debated, with varying degrees of power for the executive, and in any case in the 1780s many people assumed the federal government (including the president) would be less important than the state governments except in foreign affairs anyway.

I'd say that the main reason that the US Founding Fathers preferred a presidential system was because they were all such big fans of Montesquieu. In the Enlightenment days of the twilight of the 18th century, the idea of separation of powers was really the big thing. Plus, I really don't see how they could have devised any other system. With their utter contempt for hereditary, institutional aristocracy, any sort of monarchy would have appeared unthinkable, even if the title of king was granted to such a well admired man as George Washington. The idea of a president without powers probably would never have occurred to them, since that system would first begin seeing its implementation a century later in countries that already had some sort of parliament (like the German Reichstag) where you simply exchanged the office of hereditary monarch for an elected president. Plus, they probably would have felt it had some Cromwellian feel to it, since the President in most such republics can (on the paper) dismiss the legislature and call for new elections, etc. They wanted a Republic alright, but they considered themselves the heirs of Cicero, not of Cromwell.
 
No he doesn't, actually. The British position is "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, or "Foreign Secretary" as it's usually referred to. I was going to say that in this era the term would actually just gave been "Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs" but actually it wasn't. In this era, the North of England had its own Home and Foreign Offices, so the titles were "Secretary of the Northern/Southern Department".

No, Northern and Southern Department referred to the Baltic, Prussia, Russia and the Low Countries, and the Meditteranean, France, Spain and Austria respectively. It was only when the 7 years war indicated that there'd been massive mistakes due to the two secretaries following different paths that the two began to be united into a single foreign secretary.
 
Would US politics be more or less polarized?

It won't do much for obstructionist efforts I think.

I guess it's a matter of whether people think that compromising is a beneficial trait of government or not.

More parties would really keep the government more accountable to the voters.
 
No, Northern and Southern Department referred to the Baltic, Prussia, Russia and the Low Countries, and the Meditteranean, France, Spain and Austria respectively. It was only when the 7 years war indicated that there'd been massive mistakes due to the two secretaries following different paths that the two began to be united into a single foreign secretary.

My bad. I knew that, but I was posting far too early in the morning and clean forgot the specifics.

Worth bearing in mind that the UK has just switched to fixed five year terms for elections. (Although whether it will work in practice is in question.)

I'm on my phone at work so I can't find the actual date easily but I'm pretty sure this has been the case for around 100 years now. To say that it's a new system or might prove unworkable is somewhat...outdated.
 
Don't you mean Minister of Foreign Affairs?

No I don't. I mean the Secretary of State in the US. As you can see, the role used to include some domestic duties as well. Just re-read the sentence:

me said:
I had been thinking about the closest one could get to having a prime minister for the US using from the system America started with along with OTL ideas that were proposed but never adopted and from that I the best I could come up with is the Secretary of State keeping all of the original
 
The American system isn't really that different from the British parliamentary system anyway. Both have bi-cameral legislatures. America elects FPTP state by state, Britain elects FPTP by constituencies. The only real difference is the elected President wields all the powers that the hereditary Monarch theoretically holds, but in effect bestows upon the Prime Minister to rule on the Monarch's behalf.

In any case I can't see it effecting much. the British managed to spend 200 odd years building and then presiding over the greatest empire this world has ever seen using that system so it much have been at least as good as the American system.

I'm on my phone at work so I can't find the actual date easily but I'm pretty sure this has been the case for around 100 years now. To say that it's a new system or might prove unworkable is somewhat...outdated.
No, the previous system was that the government could go to Buckingham Palace and dissolve parliament triggering an election at any time, with elections usually held within a month, but each session of parliament could only last up to 5 years. The new system is that the government can't request a dissolution until 5 years are up, and the government will only fall on a no confidence vote or if 2/3 of MP's vote for it (effectively the same thing).
 

RousseauX

Donor
In your opinion, how would major events in American history like the Civil War, the Great Depression, both world wars, superpower status, the Cold War, etc be handled if the founding fathers imposed a British-style form of government? This means shaky Coalition governments, which in turn leads to a fundamentally weaker Prime Minister and cabinet than in a presidential system, including the possibility of instant removal with the loss of a majority in Parliament rather than the set term. A huge effect will be the fact that the Prime Minister is not supreme commander of the armed forces.

Name any worthwhile event in American history, and describe how you think it would be handled with a parliamentary government. Make it after 1787, when the need for a constitution was agreed upon (the USA was run by the Articles of Confederation before then).
The problem with this system is that it's not going to be accepted by the small states. Since presumably the parliament is going to be proportional representative based on population, it means the smaller states are going to be correspondingly less powerful. Which is precisely the reason why the Senate was created in OTL.
 
The problem with this system is that it's not going to be accepted by the small states. Since presumably the parliament is going to be proportional representative based on population, it means the smaller states are going to be correspondingly less powerful. Which is precisely the reason why the Senate was created in OTL.

They could offset it with a non-proportional Senate as the upper house. Remember, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, the Lords was still pretty much an equal to the Commons. Although I'd think, just like GB, eventually the upper house would be relegated to its role as a delayer of controversial legislation as part of the continuing democratization that would eventually take place.
 
Top