No 12th Amendment
- Thread starter jahenders
- Start date
Deleted member 9338
With out the 12th Amendment our Federal system becomes more like a parliament. Not that is a bad thing.
I can see a number of parties springing up with many being regional. I also see the House picking the President more often than not.
I can see a number of parties springing up with many being regional. I also see the House picking the President more often than not.
Washington, among others, viewed the Presidency as above politics, and hoped there would be no formal parties.
In that unrealistic context, the original system made sense. But factions existed before the Constiution was signed, and quickly developed into formal parties. In THAT context, the original system makes no sense, at all.
If 70% of the population voted for a Federalist president, who then died, they would be disenfranchised by a DR president ascending to the presidency.
The only way you dont get something equivalent to the 12th is if the whole Constitution gets dumped or ignored.
In that unrealistic context, the original system made sense. But factions existed before the Constiution was signed, and quickly developed into formal parties. In THAT context, the original system makes no sense, at all.
If 70% of the population voted for a Federalist president, who then died, they would be disenfranchised by a DR president ascending to the presidency.
The only way you dont get something equivalent to the 12th is if the whole Constitution gets dumped or ignored.
But when do you get it? OTL, it barely squeaked through the HoR with one vote to spare, and the next two elections were so one-sided that there would seem to be no particular urgency.
There might be a problem in 1812, but if not, probably nothing gets done until after 1824. Any thoughts on how that plays out under the old system?
If it failed in the Eighth Congress, it would probably pass in the Ninth; the House went from 103-39 Jeffersonian Republican in 1803 to 114-28 in 1805. http://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/
True, it might seem less urgent than after 1800, but even in 1804 the Republicans were worried about what might happen if the Amendment were not ratified in time for the election. The fear was that some Federalist electors might cast one of their votes for Clinton, making him president and Jefferson vice-president. The Republicans appointed a special thirteen-member committee to deal with this problem--i.e., to see to it that enough Republican electors would vote for someone other than Clinton not only to prevent an 1800-style tie but to offset any possible Federalist votes for him. (The committee, appointed by the Republican caucus in Congress that nominated Jefferson and Clinton, was officially given the task to "devise measures to promote the success of the republican candidates." Richard P. McCormick, *The Presidential Game: The Origins of American Presidential Politics,* p. 89. https://books.google.com/books?id=tkv5ZwUFADoC&pg=PA89 The ratification of the Amendment in September made its task superfluous.)
I don't know whether in the absence of the Amendment being ratified in time, any of the few Federalist electors would try a trick like this. But if they did (and probably even if they didn't), even though it would fail, the Republicans would be more determined than ever to prevent any such maneuver from ever being tried again--and they would have an even more lopsided majority in Congress with which to pass it.
Shouldn't this be in Pre-1900?
Well just going off of how it would effect the presidency if it were post-1900 here are some of the presidents we would have ended up with.
After President McKinley is assassinated, William Jennings Bryan becomes president. Meaning Teddy Roosevelt doesn't become president at this time.
After President Harding's death, James Cox becomes president. Possibly resulting in Franklin Roosevelt never becoming president.
If FDR is president in 1945, Thomas Dewey becomes president. Harry Truman likely never becomes president. Eisenhower might not either.
After President Kennedy is assassinated, Richard Nixon becomes president in 1963. Meaning like no civil rights or voting rights acts, no Medicare, no Great Society. Vietnam escalation is still likely. But Watergate either doesn't happen or it happens sooner or something like it happens.
If Nixon is president in 1974 and resigns, either Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern becomes president. We likely get some sort of universal, single payer health care system in the U.S. by 1976 with a bigger Democratic majority after the 1974 midterms.
But going back to William Jennings Bryan becoming president in 1901, that alone will change the course of the 20th century and who does and does not eventually become president in the 20th century. But it likely changes the course of history going all the way back to the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841, making Martin Van Buren president again.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I could see President Van Buren losing the nomination to Polk. If Zachary Taylor still wins in 1848, i think President Cass would support the Compromise of 1850. What does that do for his political future. One of the more interesting same as OTL runners up becoming President would be McClllen. Would he be as racist as Johnson? Would he have better political skills? Maybe Bryan loses to Governor Roosevelt in 1904.
I forget where I read it, but its been observed that thd original system could have aimed for the VP being the De Facto opposition leader. That would, at minimum, give the VP something to do.
jahenders
Banned
Certainly, this could produce some P-VP teams that don't work well, but compare that to our current debacle where the White House and Congressional leaders are all hyper-partisan. If you had a vice president from the other party IN many of the big meetings at the WH, perhaps they could help avoid the "echo chamber" or "group think" that's so common. They could also serve as a true ambassador to the other party, saying "Look, here's what we're trying to do and here's why you should support."
Hardly likely.
The 1920 election was so one-sided that the Republican electors could have split three ways on their second choice, and all three Republicans could still have had more votes than Cox.
What might have been possible was for enough naughty Democrats to give their second votes to Coolidge that he became President and Harding Vice-President, rather than vice versa.
All very theoretical, though, as I can't see the old system surviving much beyond 1824 at max.
A pod for this is 1 jefferson elector thowing a 2nd vote to NOT burr.
1824 looks interesting, Isuspect there would (ironically in view of later otl) SOME adams Jackson votes
1824 looks interesting, Isuspect there would (ironically in view of later otl) SOME adams Jackson votes
After one succession by a vice-president totally at odds with his predecessor's policies, the country would want a change. It's possible that a different twelfth amendment could be passed, such as there would have to be a new president elected within three months unless the president died in the last six months of his term. The vice-president would serve as president until that election.
I'd think a VP who is from a different party than the President and likely has very differing views on running the nation would be shunted off into unimportant things... Lord knows the President wouldn't want him around for day to day stuff. The VP would be endlessly presiding over charity functions, visiting closely allied nations overseas (because you wouldn't want him going to anywhere sensitive), etc...
So in some ways there could be bigger results ensuing from the opposite change, ie if it had passed sooner.
On May 3, 1802, it almost did. The Senate received a House Amendment saying simply that the persons voted for should be designated as to who was voted for as President and who as Vice-President. The vote was 15-8, just one short of two-thirds.
Had it passed (and presumably been ratified) the old rules, allowing the HoR to choose between the first five rather than the first three, if there were no majority, would have remained in place - with all sorts of butterflies for 1824.
A lesser, but still interesting point relates to the Vice-Presidency. Under the old system a majority of Electors was not needed to choose the VP - just a plurality. If this remained unchanged, then Richard M Johnson would have needed no Senate vote to elect him in 1837, while in 1860 there would be no opportunity for any scheming to put Breckinridge or Lane into the White House if Lincoln fell sort of a majority. Hannibal Hamlin would be certain of election as VP, and the House Republicans would probably be able to block action there through March 4 if need be, so that in any case it would be a Republican win.