Republicans, Democrats, and Populists, Oh My!

And that's different then the current system how?

there is a big difference. In the Electoral College system each state has a say and can swing an election. a Candidate currently has to campaign in most of the states or risk losing those states. Yeah they spend a majority of the time in the High Pop states (NY, CA, TX) but they do go to other smaller states.

In a direct election all you'd have to do is campaign in the biggest cities and largest States. it would pretty much leave all the small states out. Thats why regardless of how many times the election goes to the House and Senate they wont get rid of the EC, it'll just get adjusted in vote count
 
there is a big difference. In the Electoral College system each state has a say and can swing an election. a Candidate currently has to campaign in most of the states or risk losing those states. Yeah they spend a majority of the time in the High Pop states (NY, CA, TX) but they do go to other smaller states.

In a direct election all you'd have to do is campaign in the biggest cities and largest States. it would pretty much leave all the small states out. Thats why regardless of how many times the election goes to the House and Senate they wont get rid of the EC, it'll just get adjusted in vote count

I know, I disagree that it's a big difference and am unimpressed :p
 
This looks good to me. I disagree with one point, I think William Jennings Bryan never would have united with Debs. Bryan was socially conservative (Scopes Monkey Trial) and Debs and the socialists were socially liberal. Both of them agreed on Fundamental issues but is that enough to make them unite? I don't think so. The issues of factory workers do differ from those of farmers. One big issue in the rise of populism was the railroad rates for farm products while a lot of the socialist constituency was those same railroad workers who wanted better wages which were paid for out of those rates. Both men (Bryan and Debs) would fundamentally agree on the fact that railroad big wigs make to much money but their constituencies had fundamentally different interests in how those profits were redirected.
 
This looks good to me. I disagree with one point, I think William Jennings Bryan never would have united with Debs....

Thanks for the input! I did think that part was a little thin. Before I tackle this as a full-fledged TL, I know I need do do a lot of research. I wanted to see if the basic structure of my ideas was sound, and so far you guys have given lots of positive feedback. Thank You!

I like that this has gotten some good ratings. I am currently moving to a different town, but I am hoping to flesh out an actual story from this. I haven't tried to do that before, but I would like to write mine with a combination of Newspaper stories, history book type entries, and alt-AH.com discussions. I think I am competent enough to do that, and it seems a tried-and-true format.


And a shout-out to yelnoc for the map link! I knew of Leip's atlas, but didn't know where you guys got the maps for editing.
 
My point is that its still only a few regions. Big whoop if they change in location.

Since most elections will go to the Congress (remember, both chambers voting together as individuals), the Candidates selected by the parties must have broad geographic and ideological appeal, because not only do they need to rely on all the Representatives and Senators across the country from their own party to vote for them if needed, but will need to earn some support from members of other parties as well.

Then again, the Candidates could always make backroom deals with specific congressmen to assure their votes. I'm definitely not saying that my reforms solve all of the USA's election issues :rolleyes:
 
Since most elections will go to the Congress (remember, both chambers voting together as individuals), the Candidates selected by the parties must have broad geographic and ideological appeal, because not only do they need to rely on all the Representatives and Senators across the country from their own party to vote for them if needed, but will need to earn some support from members of other parties as well.

Then again, the Candidates could always make backroom deals with specific congressmen to assure their votes. I'm definitely not saying that my reforms solve all of the USA's election issues :rolleyes:

Backroom deals certainly would be a problem, considering how each state delegation has to vote for a specific candidate with a three-fourths majority. Deals have to be made, especially if a state's delegation is split between three parties.
 
Another issue I see with your TL is you seem to underplay the historic role the populists had in the South. They had a fairly successful run in North Carolina, and some strength in Tennessee and even Alabama. In North Carolina, they formed a successful fusion with the Republican party, forming a governing coalition of poor whites and blacks until they were removed from power violently in 1898 (blacks were formally disenfranchised a few years later, in 1900).

With the continued strength of the populists, I would expect this southern branch would continue to have some strength.
 
Since most elections will go to the Congress (remember, both chambers voting together as individuals), the Candidates selected by the parties must have broad geographic and ideological appeal, because not only do they need to rely on all the Representatives and Senators across the country from their own party to vote for them if needed, but will need to earn some support from members of other parties as well.

Then again, the Candidates could always make backroom deals with specific congressmen to assure their votes. I'm definitely not saying that my reforms solve all of the USA's election issues :rolleyes:

Wasn't the point of the reform to stop the elections from going to congress? Sure, with a 45% cutoff, alot will go there, but I'd say not more then half.
 
Another issue I see with your TL is you seem to underplay the historic role the populists had in the South. They had a fairly successful run in North Carolina, and some strength in Tennessee and even Alabama. In North Carolina, they formed a successful fusion with the Republican party, forming a governing coalition of poor whites and blacks until they were removed from power violently in 1898 (blacks were formally disenfranchised a few years later, in 1900).

With the continued strength of the populists, I would expect this southern branch would continue to have some strength.

My rough-draft maps don't indicate the relative strength of victory for the Democrats in the South: I figure that the Democrats would retain their dominance, but that the Populists would be a very viable opposition. Basically, there are almost no Republicans in the Solid South, but a Two-Party System of Dems vs Pops.
 
I can see one HUGE potential problem with this system: it goes against one of the fundamental principles of the US Constitution, the separation of powers. If the President is beholden to Congress for his election, then is he going to defy Congress? Hell no. There's a reason there's a specific ban in the Constitution against Electors being members of Congress. The Founders were paranoid, and with reason. They were very careful to ensure that the powers of each branch of the federal government are separated. And they did a good job of it too. Yes, the House elects the president if there is no one winner, but that has only happened once in our history. The electoral college can be removed, but there is no way Congress will get that much power. The President will be reduced to a puppet of Congress, which is not how we want the federal government.
 
I can see one HUGE potential problem with this system: it goes against one of the fundamental principles of the US Constitution, the separation of powers. If the President is beholden to Congress for his election, then is he going to defy Congress? Hell no. There's a reason there's a specific ban in the Constitution against Electors being members of Congress. The Founders were paranoid, and with reason. They were very careful to ensure that the powers of each branch of the federal government are separated. And they did a good job of it too. Yes, the House elects the president if there is no one winner, but that has only happened once in our history. The electoral college can be removed, but there is no way Congress will get that much power. The President will be reduced to a puppet of Congress, which is not how we want the federal government.

Here, though, the Presidency has been thrown to the house several times in a row, so there would be less revulsion to it. Further, the system itself is more likely to generate an actual President than the Electoral College method given the different political landscape (especially if they included a runoff, instant or not--that would be helpful)
 
idk, i think this kind of senerio would lead to far more corruption and such. what would stop members of congress from making deals before they even run that certain members would vote for them if it worked out that way? what would stop them from selling their votes on bills? we'd have far more than what has gone on
 
Top