What if the United States elected "kings" instead of presidents?

ArKhan

  • All the presidental powers outlined in the OTL constitution goes the King.
  • The King can legally rule for life, however every 4 years the people vote on whether they "aprove" or "disaprove" of the current King. If the majority "disaprove" the current King must step down and a new king is elected.
  • Congress can, at any time, have a vote of no confidence, which must pass both houses with a 3/4 majority.
  • Once a king is removed from power, he can not run agian.
  • The Kings are treated with the same pomp and ceremony as European monarchs.
  • Using Washington as an example, the Kings are styled thusly: "His Royal Majesty, George I of the United States, House of Washington."
  • The King also selects a "Prince" who fills the roll of the Vice President in case of death. However if the king is voted out, the prince can't run agian either.
 
Last edited:

Elfwine

So basically the president gets the trappings of royalty but is even weaker than the OTL presidency (to the extent there's an differences)?
 

ArKhan

Elfwine said:
So basically the president gets the trappings of royalty but is even weaker than the OTL presidency (to the extent there's an differences)?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say weaker, it all depends on how they play it. If they don't piss off congress to much and are popular enough to have more than half the country aprove of them every four years, then they could very well rule for life. Also, the incumbent can't run for re-election. It will allways be a fresh batch of candidates.
 

Elfwine

ArKhan said:
I wouldn't say weaker, it all depends on how they play it. If they play nice with congress and are popular enough to have more than half the country aprove of them year after, then they could very well rule for life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they can rule for life simply by winning elections over and over again with the OTL set up (the two term custom was Washington deciding sixteen years in the yoke was enough, and the law isn't until over a century and a half later), without the Vote of No Confidence or being unable to run again after losing.

Neither are huge things - but it is a slight decrease in the office's power in exchange for a fancier get up.

Not to challenge your idea, but personally I think removing the elections and just having a vote of no confidence (simple majority? two thirds?) by both houses be capable of removing a "King" would be a more interesting change. You could get some interesting politics that way.
 

wietze

So essentially you would create a position that is like that of stadholder in the Netherlands/United Provinces?
Although a stadholder is somewhat like a hereditary president, parliament is definitely in charge and could remove the stadholder from power if they wanted to.
 

ArKhan

wietze said:
So essentially you would create a position that is like that of stadholder in the Netherlands/United Provinces?
Although a stadholder is somewhat like a hereditary president, parliament is definitely in charge and could remove the stadholder from power if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
Minus the heditary part, yeah, that's what I was going for.
 

benjamin

This could get interesting if the "Kings" were able to stay aloof from party membership. OTL we have president who is head of government first but must than had as head of state as well. In this scenario I could see the roles reversed a bit. This may lead to an increased role for the Speaker of the House as the de facto head of government. All in all I think we'll see presidential power held by even fewer powerful families in this TL and a somewhat more parliamentarian style government. If we get a few bad kings in a row there will probably be an amendment or two to limit their power even further.

Benjamin
 

zoomar

You have said nothing about how royal lineages function. Without a royal family, aren't you just describing another kind of "president"?

It can be argued, however, that the President as originally seen in the constitution might have functioned as such a leader. Washington set the precedent for term limits by not running for a 3rd term - which was his right - and something many people expected he would do. Had Washington kept running and kept being elected until he died in office, the precedent might have been set that presidents would serve very long terms. In fact, since the constitution doesn't absolutely require that there be multiple candidates for president in each election, you might see a situation in which presidents only draw serious opponents when they are particularly inept or bad. Just a thought.
 

Last of the Stuarts

zoomar said:
You have said nothing about how royal lineages function. Without a royal family, aren't you just describing another kind of "president"?
Click to expand...

Have to agree, having a King seems to imply that there is a prince et al. Given that Washington was childless would this have ruled him out, in favour of Adams (as Jefferson only had daughters).

Also given that the ARW was about getting rid of a king, why would they want to replace one king with another?
 

deejay27

Problem being with the initial posting, it looks more like a prime minister than a king. A king is in for the long run, but is largely symbolic in their power. Aside from influcence and money of course.

It defies the nature of a King, which is a hereditary ruler for life or until abdication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top