Prime Minister Gore: A Different America

In the 1994 midterm elections, one of the few bright spots for Democrats was keeping the Oregon governoship in Democratic hands. As John Kitzhaber's transition team shuffled through applications for internships, one looked quite spectacular -- the application of Monica Lewinsky. She was quickly hired as an intern at Governor Kitzhaber's office. Incidentally, Governor Kitzhaber, often looked at as a potential primary challenger to Al Gore in 2000, would resign after allegations of having had an affair with Lewinsky in 1998.

Meanwhile, in Washington DC, Bill Clinton was secretly planning on changing the whole concept of American democracy. An ambitious goal, sure, but a new millennium needed a new kind of electoral idea. So in 1996, shortly after winning a landslide re-election against Bob Dole, he walked to the East Room to propose his electoral reform: The Democracy Act. The concept was quite simple: Starting in 2000, both parties would hold primaries across the nation to decide who would be the candidate for Prime Minister, exactly how the presidential primaries were held. Then, on Election Day, each state would hold elections for who they thought would be best fit to serve as Prime Minister. Across the state, whoever got over 5% of the popular vote would win the electoral votes of the state. Meanwhile, each party would publish a list of who would get a congressional seat in that state, similar to MMP party lists. The presidential popular vote would determine the amount of seats for each party in that state. There would be no 440-seat limit. It would be truly proportional.

How would the country react? Only time would tell.
 
150522144544-clinton-scandals-travelgate-super-169.jpg

President Clinton addresses questions about the Democracy Act

Public response was initially mixed. The first poll following the announcement showed 49% in favor, 41% against, with 10% undecided. It was clear that this was going to be hard to sell to the Republicans. But Clinton was confident. He knew that if the poll numbers were already close to 50% for, then surely the Republicans couldn't go against the people's will. Because if they did, they would pay big time in 1998.

The response from Republicans, however, was yet to be seen. How Gingrich and co. would react was still unknown. But Speaker Gingrich had scheduled a press conference for the next day, and had not-so-subtly hinted that it was regarding the Democracy Act.
 
I'm sorry, but this is Alien Space Bats on crack.

Any U.S. President who proposed this would be thrown bodily from the roof of a building.
 
I'm sorry, but this is Alien Space Bats on crack.

Any U.S. President who proposed this would be thrown bodily from the roof of a building.
Woodrow Wilson was in favor of a parliamentary system and he was physically fine for it, but I agree that Clinton proposing a parliamentary system and trying to push it through in four years is implausible.
 
Woodrow Wilson was in favor of a parliamentary system and he was physically fine for it, but I agree that Clinton proposing a parliamentary system and trying to push it through in four years is implausible.

There's a big difference between being in favor of something and trying to actually get it implemented.

I'm not really seeing great awareness in this thread of exactly how big of a change this is. You are literally talking about tearing up the entire U.S. Constitution and hard-resetting the system by which the country is governed. Even a constitutional amendment wouldn't be enough for this sort of thing. You would need to get 2/3's of state legislatures to call a convention under Article V of the current Constitution (never before implemented in American history) and draft a new one from scratch. This TL has Clinton doing this through what appears to be trying to put a law through Congress. That is literally legally impossible. Can't be done, period and dot. We won't even get into what would have to change in state, military, and federal legal codes beneath the Constitution to reflect this.

Also, remember that those legislatures are made up of people of and from the two-party system who made their careers in the status quo, which will be upended by this change. So you need at least 66.6% of them to agree to commit political suicide by agreeing to vote for this. Not a chance.
 
There's a big difference between being in favor of something and trying to actually get it implemented.

I'm not really seeing great awareness in this thread of exactly how big of a change this is. You are literally talking about tearing up the entire U.S. Constitution and hard-resetting the system by which the country is governed. Even a constitutional amendment wouldn't be enough for this sort of thing. You would need to get 2/3's of state legislatures to call a convention under Article V of the current Constitution (never before implemented in American history) and draft a new one from scratch. This TL has Clinton doing this through what appears to be trying to put a law through Congress. That is literally legally impossible. Can't be done, period and dot. We won't even get into what would have to change in state, military, and federal legal codes beneath the Constitution to reflect this.

Also, remember that those legislatures are made up of people of and from the two-party system who made their careers in the status quo, which will be upended by this change. So you need at least 66.6% of them to agree to commit political suicide by agreeing to vote for this. Not a chance.

Just wait...Gingrich's response will be along the lines of exactly what you just stated, and more.
 
Just wait...Gingrich's response will be along the lines of exactly what you just stated, and more.

I imagine it would be, but it's important to realize that it's not just his point of view/response, it's the practical objective realities of the situation.
 
Top