The effects of a multi-person Presidency.

So... Bump
Thoughts? Ideas? Proto-TLs? Rants about the stupidity and absurdity of the idea?
Come on, an attempt at a discussion of monumental changes in the political system of a major world power can't be the dullest thing I've posted.;)
 
Basically, you need to figure out the specifics of the actual constitutional scheme before you run the hypotheticals (see my previous post on this thread for examples). There's no reason to marry yourself to one.

It is an interesting idea, partly because what it does is pull American political history towards the center, wherever that happens to be at a given point of our history. So when we otherwise would have President Lincoln, things aren't as good. But when we otherwise have President Nixon, things are pretty nifty.

So... Bump
Thoughts? Ideas? Proto-TLs? Rants about the stupidity and absurdity of the idea?
Come on, an attempt at a discussion of monumental changes in the political system of a major world power can't be the dullest thing I've posted.;)
 
Ok so I guess Ill post a couple of scenarios and you can all give comments and suggestions. Note all of these assume the Constitution works as OTL unless otherwise noted.

  1. A Swiss-like system. Basically instead of the President being an independent executive the Cabinet is. Each Cabinet post is elected separately. Either in rotation; War and Treasury one election State and Justice the next etc. All serving a 4,6 or 8 year term. Or all at once every 4 or 6 years. They hold executive powers as a group and most act and speak as one body when they use them (Going to war, executive orders, pardons, vetos etc.) but has some leeway with the running of their department.
  2. A similar system except only three posts (State, Treasury and Attorney General) sit on the executive council and all the other cabinet posts report to them. While they all have to sign a bill to make it law each does have some powers reserved to itself. For example only State can conduct foreign affairs and only the AG can pardon people or mess with the DA's office. Treasury receives budget requests from the other cabinet posts and departments (including State and Justice). Preps the final budget request for Congress and dolls out the dollars. They would probably have other powers but that is what I can come up with at the moment. Again either elected all at once to a 4-8 year term or every two years to a six year term.
  3. The simplest. We really just have three Presidents. All have a veto and a pardon and as a whole are CinC. I can't decide whether to allow them to each have an executive order pen or force them to all sign off. The former may require them to work with each other more and limits the ability for two to bully the third but may result in EO wars. The veto may cause this too but if you can't get triple the scrutiny of the legislation what is the point? Elected once every 4 years or on rotation every 2 years to a six year term.
So... Thoughts? Ideas? Modifications? TLs? Other Scenarios? Funny Stories?
 
Okay, first, a consideration of these three scenarios:

IMO, if the Cabinet is independently elected, then you instantly need to have a defined number of posts. OTL the Cabinet is never Constitutionally defined and new Presidents sometimes grant existing posts "cabinet rank." For example, Obama has given the Ambassador to the UN "cabinet rank." This requirement makes #1 look a lot like Option #2. Additionally, a lot would depend on how you space out elections. If you have staggered elections and terms, then I think there's an extent to which the electorate will expect each cabinet member to have a stance on all issues, as each will campaign seperately. Nevertheless, these broader issues the candidates would seek to tie back to their expereince: if you're the Treasurer talking about education, you talk about funding; if you're the AG, you talk about rights; if you're the Sec State, you talk about international competitiveness. If you have elections all at once, then you probably get teams of candidates, which makes for a very different style of politics. The primary template for such a system, IMO, is that used by some states were certain executive members are independently elected: for example, an AG and a Comptroller (or even the Lt. Governor). In such systems, the Governor has much less authority than the President vis-a-vis the executive power and vis-a-vis the legislature/Congress; however, he's still viewed as "the guy in charge" even if in a more diffuse sense.

The problem with all of them, however, is the question "who is in charge?" This is as simple as who chairs the Cabinet meetings (actually a very important decision, since it affects how procedure works in those meetings, who gets to set the agenda and count the votes). In terms of the chain of command, this is supremely important. It's why I think Options #1 and #2 are more likely and more durable than #3.

Historically, of course, there's a very good reason 1) the Framers didn't spend too much time dilineating the nature of executive authority and 2) included a vaguely defined single person executive: George Washington. Recall that Washington was President of the Constitutional Convention. Where it was fine for a delegate to stand and question the potential probity and trustworthiness of the legislature, questioning the motives of the executive could be interpretted as a veiled insult to Washington himself, since it was widely assumed that he would become the nation's Cheif Executive. Additionally, Washington was an extremely trustworthy individual, conspicuously aware of the stupendous amount of trust placed in him by virtue of his office. Add to this Pennsylvania's disastrous expereince with its Executive Committee (the government was at times paralyzed if one or more of the members couldn't be found so that the Committee had a quorum or could meet on certain topics; it leant it self to emergency government taking quasi- or unconstitutional decisisions in times of crisis when they were most dangerous).

Accordingly, I think the most likely / plausible scenario historically is that the Constitution includes a more specific definition of the Cabinet (some anti-federalists wanted such a device, particularly Patrick Henry) and perhaps additional duties for the Vice-President. For example, perhaps a Cabinet decision is required 1) to approve significant military actions short of war, 2) to certify the State of the Union, or 3) to exercise the pardon power. Even more important though is the expereince of the Cabinet being a meaningfully seperate body within the Executive. Compared to the British Cabinet, the US Cabinet is much more "the President's foremost Advisory Council." In part, of course, this is because its members are appointed at the President's discretion, answerable to him. For the Cabinet officers to form meaningful units of executive authority in potential opposition to the President, that would have to be different. Baring explicit Constitution direction to this point, this would require much greater leadership and initiative from the Senate in the Early Republic than was the case OTL. For example, when contemplating the first treaty (one with the Creeks) made under the 1787 Constitution, Washington sought the Senate's advice before making it, attending a session of the Senate to obtain its guidance on the issues. The Senate spent much of its time discussing whether or not to applaud the President when he entered. Washington found the expereince so dilatory that he never repeated it, and thereafter only sought the Senate's approval of treaties he'd already negotiated (e.g. the Jay Treaty). All other Presidents have done likewise.
 
The PoD for this is that Horatio Gates died at Saratoga (a PoD I'm somewhat fond of).

OK, lets say that war hero Benedict Arnold is in favor of the multi-person Presidency, and he, Franklin, and others persuade enough people that it gets put into the constitution. The First Triumvirate consists of George Washington (State), John Adams (Treasury) and Benedict Arnold (Attorney General). How do the first four years look?
 
The PoD for this is that Horatio Gates died at Saratoga (a PoD I'm somewhat fond of).

OK, lets say that war hero Benedict Arnold is in favor of the multi-person Presidency, and he, Franklin, and others persuade enough people that it gets put into the constitution. The First Triumvirate consists of George Washington (State), John Adams (Treasury) and Benedict Arnold (Attorney General). How do the first four years look?

Benedict Arnold wasn't a lawyer, John Adams wasn't a financier. Look at Adams in France and the Netherlands- he was able to negotiate the deal but I think Hamilton would need to be in that cabinent in order to support the Constitution and George Washington. Arnold would probably discredit himself before the Convention. Basically Arnold wasn't very politic, he was greedy, short-sighted, and just one more effective general among several who emerged as national figures (Knox comes to mind). Anyway, Arnold doesn't have the chops to be an effective delegate at the Convention, or in deed in politics.
 
Bump....

Assuming we go with the constitutionally mandated cabinet what would be the posts? I think President/Secretary of State, Treasurer/Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney General/Secretary of Justice seem the most likely as the initial posts but I'm unsure as to any additional ones that may be stated in the Constitution or amended in latter. Any thoughts?

Also how would the fact that the guy who runs the foreign affairs (be it a war or a embassy or aid) and the guy who requests the budget for the war, embassy construction, aid are different people effect how such things are done?
 
My idea would be for a rotating presidenty, with elections 3-years apart and you would have three 'roles'; Head of State, Foregin President and Domestic President, they would all have a equal vote and but the FP would frame the debate for foreign affairs and as would the DP for domestic affairs.

The elections would work by having a two man races, as the US has presently, the victor would become FP and the looseer DP... the FP would then be 'groomed' for the HoS role... in another three years the FP becomes Hos and you have fresh elections for a new FP & DP.

It would run like this;

Clinton as Head of State
Bush as Foreign President (Victor in the election)
Gore as Domestic President (Runner up in the election)

Then in three years Clinton retires and you have;

Bush as Head of State
Kerry as Foreign President (Victor in the election)
McCanin (?) as Domestic President (Runner up in the election)

So what do you guys think?
 
My idea would be for a rotating presidenty, with elections 3-years apart and you would have three 'roles'; Head of State, Foregin President and Domestic President, they would all have a equal vote and but the FP would frame the debate for foreign affairs and as would the DP for domestic affairs.

The elections would work by having a two man races, as the US has presently, the victor would become FP and the looseer DP... the FP would then be 'groomed' for the HoS role... in another three years the FP becomes Hos and you have fresh elections for a new FP & DP.

It would run like this;

Clinton as Head of State
Bush as Foreign President (Victor in the election)
Gore as Domestic President (Runner up in the election)

Then in three years Clinton retires and you have;

Bush as Head of State
Kerry as Foreign President (Victor in the election)
McCanin (?) as Domestic President (Runner up in the election)

So what do you guys think?
It is interesting but I think that the parties would be likely to run their candidates as teams IE a Clinton, Bush, Cheney or Bush, Kerry, Edwards administration. Also how do you deal with someone campaigning for Domestic President on purpose instead of FP and losing? Also how long is one HoS? Does one serve as it for a term and then return to run for FP/DP again? Does one automatically get promoted or is FP/DP just a requirement for those that want to run for HoS?
 
I haven't quite thought this through yet, but interestingly enough if one was to have a tripartite presidency divided by roles, the roles could actually get specific powers of the presidency. The foreign policy president could actually get the power to negotiate and sign treaties, deploy the military, appoint generals, etc. The domestic policy president could have the appointive powers over the executive branch excluding everything with a seat in the NSA (the NSA becoming the foreign policy president's cabinet, essentially). But more importantly the domestic policy president would have the power of the veto, submit the executive branch's budgets to Congress, respond to domestic emergencies, and handle the economic issues because it would be he who would have the relationship to Treasury or the Fed. What other people are calling the Head of State president could also be the constitutional president or the structural president or the legal president: he would have only one cabinet officer responsive to him, the Attorney General. He would have the power to appoint members of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and through the Attorney General he would have the right to file suit in domestic and international courts. His powers would be less flashy, but the compensation for that would be the duration of his influence, as the federal courts have huge influence over the policy decisions of the whole goverment.

What do you think?

It is interesting but I think that the parties would be likely to run their candidates as teams IE a Clinton, Bush, Cheney or Bush, Kerry, Edwards administration. Also how do you deal with someone campaigning for Domestic President on purpose instead of FP and losing? Also how long is one HoS? Does one serve as it for a term and then return to run for FP/DP again? Does one automatically get promoted or is FP/DP just a requirement for those that want to run for HoS?
 
I haven't quite thought this through yet, but interestingly enough if one was to have a tripartite presidency divided by roles, the roles could actually get specific powers of the presidency. The foreign policy president could actually get the power to negotiate and sign treaties, deploy the military, appoint generals, etc. The domestic policy president could have the appointive powers over the executive branch excluding everything with a seat in the NSA (the NSA becoming the foreign policy president's cabinet, essentially). But more importantly the domestic policy president would have the power of the veto, submit the executive branch's budgets to Congress, respond to domestic emergencies, and handle the economic issues because it would be he who would have the relationship to Treasury or the Fed. What other people are calling the Head of State president could also be the constitutional president or the structural president or the legal president: he would have only one cabinet officer responsive to him, the Attorney General. He would have the power to appoint members of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, and through the Attorney General he would have the right to file suit in domestic and international courts. His powers would be less flashy, but the compensation for that would be the duration of his influence, as the federal courts have huge influence over the policy decisions of the whole goverment.

What do you think?
I think it would be interesting and possibly more efficient. As you could elect people on their core competences and views instead of taking the good with the bad as you do with the current system. The question is exactly how you would split up the powers and deal with conflict. If your domestic leader is Pro-Choice and Gay Rights and your AG is Pro-Life/Anti-Gay Rights how do you deal with the former pushing for laws to protect choice/gay marriage while the latter appoints justices and judges who will overturn them? Or where is the line between Justice, Foreign and Domestic? Which does the FBI fall under? It is part of the intelligence community but operates only within the US and pursues criminals. Or in the military. Where does the Militia/National Guard fall? Who prepares the budget request for domestic military functions( DARPA, the Academies, Base construction etc.) or military affairs in general? Do trade regulations fall under the domestic or foreign realm?

I think that this could have some interesting effects on the history of the US. Would the Civil War be run by the domestic or AG president to prevent the recognition of the CSA as a sovereign state? How would the fact that at least one executive is likely to be southern effect TTL's Civil War and abolition process? How would something like the Depression and WWII analogue be affected by TTL's FDR equivalent being able only to choose on field to have an impact on?

I think this may require a higher average level of competence then our current system as you can no longer say " I might have destroyed the economy but at least I ended the war in Timbuktu" and vice versa. They will be judged on their ability to do a narrower portion of the job. Which means they will be more able to focus their time and talents on Domestic/Foreign/Justice affairs alone.
 
Top