POTUS Elected by Congress

Jasen777

Donor
WI the POTUS was elected by Congress? This would be implemented in the Constitution. The President has the same powers as OTL, and can't be removed until his 4 year term is complete. Congress can vote for anyone who meets the eligibility requirements, it doesn't have to be a member of Congress.

I'm thinking that it's the House that votes, with each member getting a vote (not voting by states). But it could be done other ways.

Perhaps this happens because the founding fathers are worried more about the mob.

I'd still expect the first years to be dominated by the Federalist vs. Democratic-Republican discussion. However, under this system we could see third parties gain influence. I'd think a western collation would arise fairly shortly.
 
WI the POTUS was elected by Congress? This would be implemented in the Constitution. The President has the same powers as OTL, and can't be removed until his 4 year term is complete. Congress can vote for anyone who meets the eligibility requirements, it doesn't have to be a member of Congress.

I'm thinking that it's the House that votes, with each member getting a vote (not voting by states). But it could be done other ways.

Perhaps this happens because the founding fathers are worried more about the mob.

I'd still expect the first years to be dominated by the Federalist vs. Democratic-Republican discussion. However, under this system we could see third parties gain influence. I'd think a western collation would arise fairly shortly.

In the 1860 election, this would pose a problem, as the House was anti-slavery and for Lincoln, while the South was split. Who would they elect?
 
WI the POTUS was elected by Congress? This would be implemented in the Constitution. The President has the same powers as OTL, and can't be removed until his 4 year term is complete. Congress can vote for anyone who meets the eligibility requirements, it doesn't have to be a member of Congress.

I'm thinking that it's the House that votes, with each member getting a vote (not voting by states). But it could be done other ways.

Perhaps this happens because the founding fathers are worried more about the mob.

I'd still expect the first years to be dominated by the Federalist vs. Democratic-Republican discussion. However, under this system we could see third parties gain influence. I'd think a western collation would arise fairly shortly.


I'm thinking that it's the House that votes, with each member getting a vote (not voting by states). But it could be done other ways.

This will give some states a fit. The Senate was what protected them. They won't allow this in my opinion. just sayin...
 
I'm thinking that it's the House that votes, with each member getting a vote (not voting by states). But it could be done other ways.

This will give some states a fit. The Senate was what protected them. They won't allow this in my opinion. just sayin...

Yeah, the South would of been afriad for that, that is why they INSISTED on at least one body of congress based on simple equality (2 per state) and not per population.

This leans ASB or merits discussion on that before we should move on.
 

Jasen777

Donor
In the 1860 election, this would pose a problem, as the House was anti-slavery and for Lincoln, while the South was split. Who would they elect?

Lots of butterflies before 1860. But if things go pretty much they same we'll probably get an anti-slavery block at some point, at which the South may leave.
 

Jasen777

Donor
This will give some states a fit. The Senate was what protected them. They won't allow this in my opinion. just sayin...

The Senate is still there. If it's that big of a problem, we could make it to where the Senate has to confirm the House's pick.
 
Yeah, the South would of been afriad for that, that is why they INSISTED on at least one body of congress based on simple equality (2 per state) and not per population.

This leans ASB or merits discussion on that before we should move on.

As I recall it was not the Southern states which pushed for equal representation in the Senate (Virginia proposed that both houses have representation divided by population after all), but rather the smaller states like New Jersey and Rhode Island who feared that their votes would be drowned out in a proportional system. Of course, 70 years after the Constitution was written the political and demographic situation had changed tremendously.
 
The Founders expected Presidential elections to be thrown into the House, so they believed that your outcome (albeit in state sized blocks) would be the standard way to choose the President.

I suppose it's possible that they specifically set up the President to be elected by Congress though I'm not sure if they'd leave it to individual members, or involve the Senate, or what.
 
I doubt a system which had the President elected by the House on individual voting would gain the approval of the smaller states; as it is small states are over-represented in the electoral college, and are one of the main reasons there has never been a serious attempt to abolish that body. IMO, if the President were to be elected by either house of Congress the Senate would be a more likely choice; it is the more prestigious of the two branches of Congress with longer-serving members, and that choice would be more palatable to small states (though the large ones might object).

Rather than having it be one house or the other it could be interesting if the President had to be approved by both the House and the Senate; it does seem like the sort of compromise that just might get worked out to appease both large and small states. However, it would probably only be a matter of time before a crisis emerges when there is a split Congress, so neither party could push through their own candidate.
 
it is the more prestigious of the two branches of Congress

It wasn't designed that way. In fact, the House was often in higher regard until some time into the 19th century. (Remember, the House was still pretty small back then.) Although I agree that it's the much more logical choice for a congressional election in these circumstances.
 
If election of the President by the Congress had been enshrined in the Constitution it may be likely that Southern would initially have pushed stronger for slaves being counted as 'one free man' rather than accepting the 3/5 ratio suggested by Northern representatives.
 
This may be ASB, but is there any way...with a POD anytime between
1500 :)D:rolleyes:) and 1789, the colonies' boundaries are drawn, or redrawn, so they all have the same size? They can have either the same area or the same population. Or maybe all the colonies were the same size to begin with? I know, they were founded at different times, but still... ASB?
 
Electric Monk said:
The Founders expected Presidential elections to be thrown into the House, so they believed that your outcome (albeit in state sized blocks) would be the standard way to choose the President.

Probably, see the following from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:
At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct". Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the President's independence. Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee's proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6.

I think the important part here is the date: the proposal was approved on September 6. The Convention disbanded on Septmebr 17, less than two weeks later. The Founders spent most of their time arguing about Congress and hence on Article I, and much less time on the subsquent branches. This is probably an indication of the extent to which they believed that Congress would be the pre-emienent branch. The President would be more functionary; Congress would make the actual decisions.

The necessary POD, IMO, is to alter Washington's first term. Perhaps he decides only to serve one term. Perhaps he decides that his vow not to take public office (after giving up his sword in 1783) extends to the new Presidency. Perhaps he dies after the Convention but before the electio or before taking office. Without the disputes between Hamilton and Jefferson in Washington's Cabinet, poltical parties will grow up in different ways. For Congress to retain power, a TTL 12th Amendment would have to in some transition power directly to Congress: the states nominate candidates, the House votes on all of them (or the winners of most noninations), Congress as a whole must select both President and VP. Under this scheme, an informal semi-presidential system might develop, with the Speaker of the House attaining the power of something like a Prime Minister. The major obstacle to this is the small size of the House: with so few members, it's very easy for the swing votes to switch sides. Without Westminster protocols, there is no provision of for a vote-of-no-confidence. Also, the Speaker has little mechanism by which to exert power when Congress is not in session, which for much of the 19th Century, it wasn't much of the time. Hence for Congress to be the pre-dominate governing body, it would have to function quite differently from OTL's Congress. Furthermore, barring a TTL 12th Amendment, the growth of a national media (even of newspapers) and new transportation methods will make it easier and easier for the President to exert authority.

The problem is really how to preserve the powers of Congress into the 20th century. Perhaps the solution there is a POD in the 1890s/1900s in the tumult surrounding the Populist and Progressive movements. Perhaps the argue in addition to direct election of senators, for a larger house with perhaps some seats allocated by more proportional means. Perhaps they make the President's term six years and non-releligible. Much of this is doubtful, since it was the Presidency OTL that served as the major bulwark against the corporate interest disfavored by the populists. However, one easy POD is for McKinley not to die. TR languishes in the VP. The Progressives have not way into power. Their frustration turns them against the executive and enhances their calls for reform. Maybe TR turns up as a Senator or Representative and champions their cause.
 
How clear was the North South division over slave property in 1787?

The hard part is that the divison over slave property in 1787 doesn't really allign with what we later think of as the North-South division. To some extent, though, 1787 is the beginning of the legal foundations of that dispute: the 3/5s compromise was largely between northern states, who mostly had wide franchises (not universal male, there were still property qualifications) and southern states (with more restrictive property qualifications, by and large) with more narrow franchises and much larger slave populations. The southern attempt to gain political power in proportion to their slaves corresponds with perhaps the first conscious extertion of political will by the South as a region in pursuit of slave-interests.

Almost immediately this division grew: Madison's conversion from a support of the federal constitution to a Democratic-Republican tracks to the pettition by Quakers in 1792 or so, to begin a gradual abolition of slavery. It's by no means clear cut: slavery is not entrenched in the south by any means. Whitney's cotton gin renewed its economic vitality. Until the late 1830s, southern planters looked down on slavery as "wolf" they held by the ears rather than glorified in it for racial reasons. It also took the North a similar amount of time to develop an ideology that was the diametic opposite of the slave system. Hence, in 1787 the consciousness of North-South politics was very muted and no where near the all encompassing divide it would become.

Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the precise nature of the genesis of this split in and of itself argues one way or the other for Congressional election of the President.
 

Jasen777

Donor
Let's try to move to discussing what changes this might cause. Yes, it might run into problems, but so did OTL's method.

BTW, the same method is used to select the VPOTUS.
 
1) The President is either the tool of Congress or simply the head of the Cabinet. The Executive branch becomes about implementing laws and directives of Congress, not about being the Commander-in-Chief, Prosecutor-in-Chief, etc. His most influential role might be in brokering compromises between the Senate and House, however.

2) Cabinet officers rather than being picked largely by the President are picked by Congressional leaders, particularly Senate leaders. Presidential nomination is largely a formality.

3) The State of the Union remains a written report submitted by the President to Congress, rather than a speech.

4) There is a showdown between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Their powers, if presumed to be unchanged, are relatively co-equal: the Senate has pre-emeninet powers over foreign relations by virtue of the advice and consent clause as well as over the Cabinet and thus the Administration. The House has a wide birth over domestic affiars, due to the requirement that all appropriation bills originate with them. If the Senate remains indirectly elected, I would expect the House to be particularly vociferous in demanding that it in fact must originate all legislation since all legislation at some point directs the expenditure of money and hence can be seen as an appropriation. (This is similar to what happened OTL to the interstate commerce clause.) If so, then the House become the predominant branch. When direct election comes around, it may be election by the House, rather than by the Senate. This would bring the old Virginia Plan of Madison directly into operation.

5) I would probably expect to see a larger House of Representatives than we have OTL. With no election of the President, people will want more responsiveness out of the House than its traditionally small numbers allow. The leadership of Congress will agree because larger numbers of Congressmen decrease the marginal ability of any single one or any small group to stall legislation and thus buck party unity. A larger House allows the Speaker to more effectively run the legislative agenda.

6) There would strange effects as well on the terms of Congress. Jansen's original suggestion is that the President is appointed to a four year term and can only be impeached for gross misbehavior, as per OTL's Constitution. If in a mid-term election, the House changes hands what does the new Party do with the President? I think this question is largely muted, because I think the President will be largely apolitical, like the President of Israel, Germany, or Ireland (and perhaps Poland, though there's a bit more power there).

7) In short, something like a Parliamentary system evolves within the confines of the American system. The major differences are: regular elections, the separation of executive offices and the legislature (rather than Cabinet memebers being part of the legislature). I think this would have the effect, however, of decreasing the importance of the Federal government and the extent it becomes a national government. Congress has never had much respect from the national at large because it becomes a last hive of folks who are all bent on the benefit of their own districts and constantly looking to raise money for their next campaign. The Speaker of the House and the leader of Senate (which might be organized differently in such a system) would not fulfill the same kind of role as national figure. The TTL President would be unifying, as a broker of compromise, but he would be largely ceremonial. Without this feeling, there will be in, IMO, greater reluctance to expand the scope of the federal government. I should also add that parties work in very different manner than OTL American parties: there may be more of them, for starters, particularly regional ones. There will also be more of divide between elected officials (politicians) and appointed officials (adminstrators). The Cabinet offices that we think of as political offices will be less overtly so as will the Presidency.
 
Last edited:
I don't see this happening without other changes. Checks and balances are less ITTL if Congress controls the presidency.
 
Top