US Parliamentary System

lord caedus

Probably done numerous times on here before, but I'm too lazy to look back through old posts and all that. WI the Constitutional Convention had set up a Westminster-like system instead of the presidential system that the US uses today? (Note: I'm thinking either a constitutional monarch or a figurehead president with a single, 6-year term for head of state or something along those lines)
Bonus points for a list of PMs & opposition leaders.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
Aranfan said:
The US can't start off with a Westminster style system. It's too British.
Click to expand...

Our current system's not that far from it. Just separation of the legislature and head of government. However, we have retained the bicameral legislative structure, the popularly-elected lower house based on proportion, and an upper house that was originally a fairly aristocratic institution composed by people appointed by state legislatures. It was only with the 17th Amendment in 1913 that Senators were made to be popularly elected.

The early US was essentially Britain Mk.2; our culture, our government, our legal system, our very notion of liberties and rights afforded to all men, were derived from British tradition and thought. With changes made to incorporate Separation of Powers and Federalism.

So us adopting a Westminster-style parliamentary system in our early years isn't that improbable. Just have the Anglophile merchant class and the Federalists have more say in how the constitution is written. The US would end up awfully similar to what Canada came to look like; albeit with an elected head of state.
 

Riain

Banned
It wouldn't work, Americans like their system as complex as possible so nobody can understand it. That's how they prevent tyranny, by tying potential tyrants in knots of red tape and marble-cake of responsibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top