post-WWII U.S. moves toward parliamentary democracy instead of 22nd amendment term-limiting presiden

Republicans might think they’d have a better chance of re-taking the House than electing a president. Democrats might worry about a popular Republican winning the presidency while they’re confident they can hold the House.

Plus, Democratic House leaders like the idea of themselves getting more power thank you very much! :)

How does all this play out?
 

samcster94

Banned
That seems ASB. I can't really picture that at all. An Americanized version of the French system actually makes some sense on paper. The Speaker of the House being about to counterbalance the President on domestic issues sounds very much in the spirit of Congress restraining the President.
 
Post WWII the trend has been towards the Imperial Presidency so this would be an extremely radical shift in the opposite direction. Hard to picture given the emphasis placed on strong leadership during the Cold War and the prominence of the military on domestic policy.
 
. . . trend has been towards the Imperial Presidency . . .
I agree. Korea and Vietnam were both police actions. Plus all the secret actions on the foreign policy side.

But here's the interesting part.

The 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms really does make a president a lame duck during his or her second term, certainly from the Congressional mid-terms of the second term to the end. And a case could be made that from the very night when a president is re-elected, he is already a lame duck.
 
Last edited:
Who would elect the prime minister
The house or the Senate?
are elections still at fixed times as OTL?
What happens to the separation of powers?
 
Another possible factor, the Supreme Court had disappointed a lot of people on "Black Monday" May 27, 1935, when it struck down several New Deal provisions on a single day. And I understand that within a parliamentary system, a central court usually has less power.

And lest we decide too quickly that FDR's court-packing scheme was a political failure, a fair number of people talk about "the switch in time that saved nine," meaning that some members of the Court may have seen the writing on the wall, including Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes who presumably did not want the Court to erode too much in legitimacy.
 
Now, what about Civil Rights if we have a weaker central court?

And as much as I'd like to see a clear victory in which we have both an earlier and better civil rights movements, this ATL might be a case of a very mixed victory in which we see a later but better civil rights movement, in which we get something at least this good. I hope so! :)
 
Last edited:
. . . The house or the Senate? . . .
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as the biggest obstacle. A functioning parliamentary system needs and requires only ONE legislative body. So, definitely a big problem

Okay, maybe a scenario like this, momentum develops past a certain point, some Senators grandstand being statesmen, the size of the House is significant increased more like UK's 650 seats, there's transitional legislation that if any current Senator is elected in a new or current district, he or she keeps their seniority (which is still likely to be less than some long-standing House members) . . . And that's basically the best I can do.

If anyone else has ideas on the transition, please, let's hear it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as the biggest obstacle. A functioning parliamentary system needs and requires only ONE legislative body. So, definitely a big problem

Momentum develops past a certain point, some Senators grandstand being statesmen, the size of the House is significant increased more like UK's 650 seats, there's transitional legislation that if any current Senator is elected in new or current district, they keep their seniority (which is still likely to be less than so long-standing House members) . . . And that's basically the best I can do.

If anyone else has ideas on the transition, please, let's hear it.

The British had this problem with the house of Lords. Over time the house of commons striped the powers of the house of lords. But this took a log time.
They did not have a written Constitution to limit their power.

Ireland might be more like what you need

Ireland has a non-executive president

A written Constitution and supreme court
Constitution can only be changed by referendum where only Irish citizens can vote.
An upper and lower house of Parliament
dail and seanad
Dail is the main legislative body and the pm is elected by the majority in this body.
Seanad is elected by limited franchise and has limited to to review legislation.
Electory is graduates of named universitys, local govermenet officals , a number of other named organistions
http://www.terryleyden.com/guide-to-seanad-elections.html

It might be useful to have a non-executive president as head of the armed forces and to signed bills in to law and for
ceremonial purposes.

I think to change America to a Parliamentary system would need a A constitutional convention
For this to happen it would take the system of the time to be seen to fail.
maybe a ruling by the supreme court finding the Federal reserve to be unconstitutional or income tax etc.
or a shutdown of the government due to the budget not passing for more than a year.
 
Last edited:

samcster94

Banned
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head as far as the biggest obstacle. A functioning parliamentary system needs and requires only ONE legislative body. So, definitely a big problem

Okay, maybe a scenario like this, momentum develops past a certain point, some Senators grandstand being statesmen, the size of the House is significant increased more like UK's 650 seats, there's transitional legislation that if any current Senator is elected in a new or current district, he or she keeps their seniority (which is still likely to be less than some long-standing House members) . . . And that's basically the best I can do.

If anyone else has ideas on the transition, please, let's hear it.
Australia is a counterexample.
 
Why change for the present system to a Parliamentary one?
America would become a Parliamentary Federal Republic?
 
I wonder could someone like TIP O'Neill become prime minister of America?
"Tip" O'Neill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_O'Neill

People like
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Henry Kissinger
Madeleine Albright,
Samantha power
Bob Hope


Could be come prime minister not president as they were not born Americans.
 
Last edited:
. . . maybe a ruling by the supreme court finding the Federal reserve to be unconstitutional or income tax etc.
or a shutdown of the government due to the budget not passing for more than a year.
I think the fact that from the stock market crash of Oct. 24 (“Black Thursday”) — Oct. 29, 1929 (“Black Tuesday”) until FDR was inaugurated close to four years later on March 4, 1933, American citizens perceived that we had a do-nothing government (even though in fact our gov’t did the negative things of reducing international trade and cutting expenses in a misplaced emphasis on balancing the budget).

There certainly could develop the feeling and belief that a parliamentary system is far more nimble and won’t leave us stuck with a lousy president for almost four years.
 
Last edited:
And plus, the fact that we had pretty much observed first-hand that Germany and Japan slid into dictatorship because their systems were not flexible enough to handle the Great Depression, momentum could develop and this momentum could pass a certain threshold,

and then the feeling that if we’re going to do a parliamentary system, by God, let’s do it right.
 
I think the fact that from the stock market crash of Oct. 24 (“Black Thursday”) — Oct. 29, 1929 (“Black Tuesday”) until FDR was inaugurated close to four years later on March 4, 1933, American citizens perceived that we had a do-nothing government (even though in fact our gov’t did the negative things of reducing international trade and cutting expenses in a misplaced emphasis on balancing the budget).

There certainly could develop the feeling and belief that a parliamentary system is far more nimble and won’t leave us stuck with a lousy president for almost four years.

The British system at Westminster is more flexible. It places a lot of power in the hands of parliament.
As long a the Prime minister has a majority in the house of commons he/or she can pass what ever law he or she likes.
The the British system parliamentary sovereign not the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
No written Constitution to limit power or uphold the peoples rights. No separation of powers. No independent judiciary.
In the British system political parties have strict whips where mp must vote with their party or be expelled from the party.
With the first past the post system and single seat constituencies. many mps have safe seats.

This system can get grid locked if no party or group of parties has a overall majority in the house of commons.


if this happens parliament can call another general election. This does not always fix the problem,
With the first pass the post system of election tends to favour the large political parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Effects
Parliaments without overall majorities or coalition are rare.

What you get with the British system is a elected dictatorship.


I am not sure how well such a system would work in a federal system in a country the size of the USA.

Would the state governments also adopt parliamentary government too?
 
Last edited:
The British system at Westminster is more flexible. It places a lot of power in the hands of parliament.
As long a the Prime minister has a majority in the house of commons he/or she can pass what ever law he or she likes.
The the British system parliamentary sovereign not the people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
No written Constitution to limit power or uphold the peoples rights. No separation of powers. No independent judiciary.
In the British system political parties have strict whips where mp must vote with their party or be expelled from the party.
With the first past the post system and single seat constituencies. many mps have safe seats.

This system can get grid locked if no party or group of parties has a overall majority in the house of commons.


if this happens parliament can call another general election. This does not always fix the problem,
With the first pass the post system of election tends to favour the large political parties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Effects
Parliaments without overall majorities or coalition are rare.

What you get with the British system is a elected dictatorship.


I am not sure how well such a system would work in a federal system in a country the size of the USA.

Would the state governments also adopt parliamentary government too?

Granted, that doesn’t mean the US still cannot have a parliamentary system. It’d just be semi-presidential one with various differences added.

We don’t have much of a system of checks and balances given how the Supreme Court is not as balanced as everyone likes to make it out to be.

We don’t need to have a first past the post system or such there.
 
Top