Presidency Models for the USA

The Professor

The Professor

It seems to me that George Washington set the precedent for the US Chief Executive (President) to be a Limited Term Elected Monarch.
So I'm wondering what the absence of George Washington would create when designing the US Executive - assuming that that his absence (early death/nonbirth) enables a rough US to be created and that the President of Congress would still obtain the post of Chief Executive.

so what I'm asking is:

Q1: What alternate models for the US Executive do you think are possible?

and

Q2: Is it possible for there to be a triumvirate?
That is, a President and 2 Deputy Presidents; possibly with each DP elected from each House.
Would each DP take on the role of Secretary for Free / Slave States? Or Executive of the North / South. Would expansion to the west lead for a simlar Executive for the West? And how would these affect the likelyhood of State Secession?

Thoughts, comments, suggestions?
 

GreatScottMarty

The Professor said:
It seems to me that George Washington set the precedent for the US Chief Executive (President) to be a Limited Term Elected Monarch.
So I'm wondering what the absence of George Washington would create when designing the US Executive - assuming that that his absence (early death/nonbirth) enables a rough US to be created and that the President of Congress would still obtain the post of Chief Executive.
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer that Washington is essential to the creation of a stable and long lasting elective republic with an elected Chief Executive but for the sake of argument I will play along;).

The Professor said:
so what I'm asking is:

Q1: What alternate models for the US Executive do you think are possible?
Click to expand...

A Split model. An elected for life Monarch who is head of state and handles foreign policy. Who then appoints a Prime Minister or Vice President if you will. Who handles Domestic affairs. Congress remains the primary legislative body while the PM (or whatever title you choose) works with the bills and represents the King's (or whatever) interests. After all the King is chosen once for a lifetime or until impeached (I dunno how this practical but I know the Founders would throw that in, after all I am describing Hamilton's plan of Govt. as proposed in 1788).

The Professor said:
Q2: Is it possible for there to be a triumvirate?
That is, a President and 2 Deputy Presidents; possibly with each DP elected from each House.
Would each DP take on the role of Secretary for Free / Slave States? Or Executive of the North / South. Would expansion to the west lead for a simlar Executive for the West? And how would these affect the likelyhood of State Secession?
Click to expand...

Ben Frankling described a plan similar to this but he had 3 co-equal presidents (think Consuls in Republican Rome). I don't think this a workable model, because how difficult would it be to get three politicians to work together. Imagine this, Jackson, Clay, Calhoun all serving in this triumvirate at the same time? Nothing, I mean Nothing would ever get done.

as for the North, South, and West. I could see Interior-like Depts evolving (much like in Harry Harrison's series) where the issues related to the North, South, and West would be represented by Cabinet level secretaries but I don't think we would create different executives for each region. Remember the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the States so that part of Federalism is already handled by the Constitution.
 

Nicomacheus

There are two essential avenues: 1) have the founders create and actual different system from the start in 1788 or 2) have the system evolve differently. The second option can soon give way to a third, that the evolution of the system creates a new, formal system.

IMO, the most plausible avenues to consider flow from the second (and perhaps third) path. Firstly, these scenarios can remain plausible because you can keep Washington around for long enough to call the Philadelphia Convention and even be elected the first POTUS. Have him kick the bucket soon thereafter, before any precedents are established, leaving John Adams (or an alternate VPOTUS) to fight with Congress and potential Cabinet leaders. Secondly, these scenarios exploit the considerable leeway of the 1788 Constitution. Consider that were it not for the example of the Treaty of New York with the Creek, the Senate might consider it's ability to advise and consent to treaties as allowing it prospective role in shaping policy, rather than just a retrospective ability to ratify. This example stems almost entirely from GW's complete frustration with the Senate (which spent most of the session Washington attended to seek the Senate's advice debating the form of how to recognize his entrance).

IMO, the notion of co-equal consuls won't fly: it offers all the flaws of executive power (arbitrary authority), none of the benefits (no decisive action) and the potential for instability (infighting between co-equal officers). Having two co-equal deputies also to offer little benefit: given the dearth of responsibilities for the VP OTL, having two seems pretty difficult.

Nevertheless, the OP does imply a solution: that the explicit Constitutional framework provides for Cabinet government as a formal part of the American system. (The OP suggests that the deputy VPs be elected by the two houses of Congress.) The ultimate hurdle in this regard is the prohibition of a member of one branch of government serving in another (i.e. members of Congress can't be cabinet members). Such a scenario requires a very different framework for the essential compromise behind the Constitution (i.e. the bicameral house). If a framework like the Virginia plan had been proposed (lower house elects upper house), then you might have some kind of executive committee elected by the upper house. Indeed, one of the Virgina members (might have been Patrick Henry, but I can't recall) proposed adding such a body to the OTL system. This body would essentially serve to check any executive action and would take all of the Senate's quasi-executive power (mostly with regard to foreign policy). Nevertheless, this system would probably still have some kind of nominal head of state: if the lower, population-linked house got to elect the members of the executive committee, the upper, stated-derived house might get the right to select its chairman.
 

Lyly

The Professor said:
Yes 3 co-equal executives is a bad idea but what about 1 and 2 Deputies?

Anyone else have any ideas?
Click to expand...
The Deputies is really kind of unnecessary as well. Firstly, you've already got the Vice President (a position that was really just created as an after thought when they created the Electoral College). Secondly, you have the departmental Secretaries.
That said, it's not like things can't develop as such. After all, today the Chief of Staff, a position that's been around less than a century, is more or less the second-in-command in the White House.
 

GreatScottMarty

@ Nicomacheus

That is a plausible solution indeed. I would point out one caveat is that the Virgnia plan was overly tilted to the more populous states and so was unacceptable to some of New England and that is how and why Sherman came up with the Connecticut Compromise. Anyway good ideas. One thing, I am doing in my TL (shameless plug) is using John Jay as VP and having him facilitate compromises on legislation from his position as VP and president of the Senate. I think if we have a 1st VP who is more interested in consensus and less in making a point (Adams) than we could see a much more involved VP than the current model one which is arrived at by Senate precedent and nothing that is in the Constitution
 
The Professor

The Professor

Nicomacheus said:
There are two essential avenues: 1) have the founders create and actual different system from the start in 1788 or 2) have the system evolve differently. The second option can soon give way to a third, that the evolution of the system creates a new, formal system.

IMO, the most plausible avenues to consider flow from the second (and perhaps third) path. Firstly, these scenarios can remain plausible because you can keep Washington around for long enough to call the Philadelphia Convention and even be elected the first POTUS. Have him kick the bucket soon thereafter, before any precedents are established, leaving John Adams (or an alternate VPOTUS) to fight with Congress and potential Cabinet leaders. Secondly, these scenarios exploit the considerable leeway of the 1788 Constitution. Consider that were it not for the example of the Treaty of New York with the Creek, the Senate might consider it's ability to advise and consent to treaties as allowing it prospective role in shaping policy, rather than just a retrospective ability to ratify. This example stems almost entirely from GW's complete frustration with the Senate (which spent most of the session Washington attended to seek the Senate's advice debating the form of how to recognize his entrance).

IMO, the notion of co-equal consuls won't fly: it offers all the flaws of executive power (arbitrary authority), none of the benefits (no decisive action) and the potential for instability (infighting between co-equal officers). Having two co-equal deputies also to offer little benefit: given the dearth of responsibilities for the VP OTL, having two seems pretty difficult.

Nevertheless, the OP does imply a solution: that the explicit Constitutional framework provides for Cabinet government as a formal part of the American system. (The OP suggests that the deputy VPs be elected by the two houses of Congress.) The ultimate hurdle in this regard is the prohibition of a member of one branch of government serving in another (i.e. members of Congress can't be cabinet members). Such a scenario requires a very different framework for the essential compromise behind the Constitution (i.e. the bicameral house). If a framework like the Virginia plan had been proposed (lower house elects upper house), then you might have some kind of executive committee elected by the upper house. Indeed, one of the Virgina members (might have been Patrick Henry, but I can't recall) proposed adding such a body to the OTL system. This body would essentially serve to check any executive action and would take all of the Senate's quasi-executive power (mostly with regard to foreign policy). Nevertheless, this system would probably still have some kind of nominal head of state: if the lower, population-linked house got to elect the members of the executive committee, the upper, stated-derived house might get the right to select its chairman.
Click to expand...

Some good ideas there. My plan was to eliminate the position of VP before it arises by not having a 1-man-executive when the US Constitution is framed but still maintain the Senate as the States Chamber.

LylyCSM2 said:
The Deputies is really kind of unnecessary as well. Firstly, you've already got the Vice President (a position that was really just created as an after thought when they created the Electoral College). Secondly, you have the departmental Secretaries.
That said, it's not like things can't develop as such. After all, today the Chief of Staff, a position that's been around less than a century, is more or less the second-in-command in the White House.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand me slightly. The President & 2 Deputy Presidents executive in my thinking holds the executive responsibilities of OTL President & Vice President and a perhaps of the Senate.
 

Orioes

Marrying Franklin's 3 consuls with the Swiss Federal Council seems an interesting if slightly anachronistic possibility.
The executive would consist of:

  • Chancellor: Head of Dept. of State. Generally runs foreign affairs.
  • Treasurer:Head of the Treasury. Disburses money the Congress appropriates. Prepares budget requests. Generally runs domestic affairs.
  • Attorney General: Appoints judges and other judicial officials. Issues pardons and reprieves. Top law enforcement officer and government's legal expert. Head of DOJ or equivalent.
There would also be a normal cabinet to advise and help the councilors administer the country. All bills have to be signed by all councilors and the councilors are elected separately two years apart to six year terms.

It would need some work to define what the councilor-specific and council-wide powers are I think much of that would be established by precedent and statue not constitutionally.
 

Shawn Endresen

Well, Franklin envisioned the three consular portfolios as Diplomacy, Taxation and War, which I still think is the way to go - and I think that works fine until Justice and the Interior become significant enough that having consuls bicker over them won't do. The responsibilities of the Attorney General aren't going to be seen as a separate portfolio originally because that implies the other two are absolved of them, which is rather anachronistic. It bogs down and stops working about the time a civil war is likely anyway, though, so a unitary executive may be part of the new government that arises after that.

All three signatures on every bill? That seems...very nearly as bad as the AoC. Two signatures seems far more reasonable.

Regarding the OP's Q1, I agree with GSM that all it needs is a first VP interested in doing something constructive (not Adams and definitely not Jefferson). There is no need for Deputies if the VP takes up the Executive's agenda in the Senate.

I like the Lord Protector model as well (elected, but for life rather than a term). The Virginia model would be fascinating, but with even fewer direct connections between the Executive and electorate, I foresee a dysfunctional government pretty fast.

No one but GW would have been treated with the deference and respect the early Congress showed the President. The Speaker of the House also had frighteningly arbitrary authority over legislation before the popular reforms of the 1910s. Without GW, I think you see a system evolve much more like Britain's Parliament, with Speaker as PM and President as ineffectual rubber stamp (not unlike the modern British monarchy).
 
Last edited:

Orioes

Shawn Endresen said:
Well, Franklin envisioned the three consular portfolios as Diplomacy, Taxation and War, which I still think is the way to go - and I think that works fine until Justice and the Interior become significant enough that having consuls bicker over them won't do. The responsibilities of the Attorney General aren't going to be seen as a separate portfolio originally because that implies the other two are absolved of them, which is rather anachronistic. It bogs down and stops working about the time a civil war is likely anyway, though, so a unitary executive may be part of the new government that arises after that.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to more information on Franklin's plan?

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the AG as it has been its own post since the beginning.

Why do you think it is likely to collapse? While it isn't directly comparable the Swiss have been using a multiple person executive for 162 years. Certainly something as catastrophic as a civil war will prompt constitutional change but if it is something similar to the ACW where the original government remains intact I don't think they will suddenly decide to essentially replace their constitution.
Shawn Endresen said:
All three signatures on every bill? That seems...very nearly as bad as the AoC. Two signatures seems far more reasonable.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, my thought was that if the Swiss can make it work with seven even we argumentative Americans can make it work with three.
 

Shawn Endresen

The post of Attorney-General was created in 1789; the Department of Justice in 1870. The early Attorneys-General had no Department to supervise and as such many doubted it was a Cabinet level position. It's just that Ed Randolph kept turning up at Cabinet meetings and no one wanted to try removing him. What I meant, though, is that the founders aren't going to acknowledge a single triumvir as "government's legal expert" because it insultingly implies that the other two, and the Legislature and Supreme Court, cannot claim that title. At the time of the Constitution being adopted, such a person (with sole authority over pardons and judicial appointments and not much else to do) would have been seen as corruption and bribery waiting not very patiently to happen.

As to the system bogging down - eventually there will be Federal prisons, originally run by the Interior Department in OTL. Are they part of War or Taxation here? Indian Affairs are originally part of War but the argument will be made soon enough that they are more properly part of Diplomacy. The Taxation portfolio gets the patent office to start with, but surely the other two have a legitimate interest in it? Don't all three have a say in the disposition of Western lands? Leaving aside the very likely possibility of electing triumvirs who loathe each other and decline to cooperate, the Executive will soon enough have responsibilities that don't fit neatly in the original scheme. The likelihood of the triumvirs ceasing to be equal is very high.
 

Blair152

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
Could the Presidency have become a mainly cereonial post, perhaps with the Speaker being a virtual Prime Minister
Click to expand...
Do you mean ceremonial? It's possible but that's not the way Founders designed it. If, OTOH, the Constitution had been written that way, or any
other way, then there would have been some provision for it.
 

Talkie Toaster

Thomas Paine had an interesting proposal...let me dig it up.
Thomas Paine said:
Let each colony be divided into six, eight, or ten, convenient districts, each district to send a proper number of delegates to Congress, so that each colony send at least thirty. The whole number in Congress will be least 390. Each Congress to sit and to choose a president by the following method. When the delegates are met, let a colony be taken from the whole thirteen colonies by lot, after which, let the whole Congress choose (by ballot) a president from out of the delegates of that province. In the next Congress, let a colony be taken by lot from twelve only, omitting that colony from which the president was taken in the former Congress, and so proceeding on till the whole thirteen shall have had their proper rotation. And in order that nothing may pass into a law but what is satisfactorily just, not less than three fifths of the Congress to be called a majority. —He that will promote discord, under a government so equally formed as this, would have joined Lucifer in his revolt.
Click to expand...

So, essentially, the president would be elected from the congress, by the congress, but they would choose the state from which to select him by lot beforehand. This would probably have led to a more powerful Congress, akin to a parliamentary form of government, perhaps even more so than traditional parliaments.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
Talkie Toaster said:
Thomas Paine had an interesting proposal...let me dig it up.


So, essentially, the president would be elected from the congress, by the congress, but they would choose the state from which to select him by lot beforehand. This would probably have led to a more powerful Congress, akin to a parliamentary form of government, perhaps even more so than traditional parliaments.
Click to expand...

Sounds almost like a Westminster style Parliament selecting its Prime Minister.

The rotating selection of state doesn’t sound so flash, more like the Chairman of the European Union was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top