WI: U.S. Became a Parliamentary System

This is not a foundational POD. Rather, it is based on the United States becoming a parliamentary government later. In the aftermath of the Lincoln Assassination of 1865, Congress reasserted it's authority and the presidency - perhaps burgeoning on an imperial presidency under Lincoln - became rather irrelevant compared to Congress. Arguably to a greater degree than it had ever been. There exist no standout presidents of that period until perhaps Theodore Roosevelt. There is also the inspiration that Woodrow Wilson himself preferred the United States were a parliamentary government.

What if the United States took the political tendencies of that era to their full extent, amended the Constitution, and transitioned to a parliamentary government?
 
This is not a foundational POD. Rather, it is based on the United States becoming a parliamentary government later. In the aftermath of the Lincoln Assassination of 1865, Congress reasserted it's authority and the presidency - perhaps burgeoning on an imperial presidency under Lincoln - became rather irrelevant compared to Congress. Arguably to a greater degree than it had ever been. There exist no standout presidents of that period until perhaps Theodore Roosevelt. There is also the inspiration that Woodrow Wilson himself preferred the United States were a parliamentary government.

What if the United States took the political tendencies of that era to their full extent, amended the Constitution, and transitioned to a parliamentary government?

This is certainly possible. One way this could occur is if power was centralized in the hands of the Speaker of the House. Perhaps if the presidency did not gain the power it did during the Adams presidency, Congress could remain supreme over the presidency and it eventually loses its power and Congress remains far more powerful than the presidency, so in effect the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate are co-presidents.

Another way is that there are multiple parties that each compete in the presidential elections, leading to Congress choosing the President multiple times and due to there being multiple parties in Congress the two are never in agreement. This shows the failure of the presidential system in the eyes of many and leads to the Constitution being amended.
 
It's hard to have strong bicameralism and parliamentary government. In nearly all bicameral parliamentary systems, the upper house has limited power, and the cabinet is accountable only to the lower house. The big exception is Italy, where the requirement that the government maintain both houses' confidence has led to a lot of instability lately.
 
I think there was a act of congress that made it illegal for the president to fire secretaries without congressional consent, but it was overturned by the supreme court, if the supreme court would of went the other way...
 
I think the question would be what would the public want.

Considering that parliamentary would be "British" and the people would pass their powers to congress in choosing an executive. They would have a lot of say to this.

I suppose the main issue is the people Who had the privilege before now being taken out of power/the right to directly vote their executive. To be replaced by people who are they also voting, Congress.

I believe parliamentary would only come to fruition if the people never had the experience nor the right to vote their executive before.
 
I think the question would be what would the public want.

Considering that parliamentary would be "British" and the people would pass their powers to congress in choosing an executive. They would have a lot of say to this.

I suppose the main issue is the people Who had the privilege before now being taken out of power/the right to directly vote their executive. To be replaced by people who are they also voting, Congress.

I believe parliamentary would only come to fruition if the people never had the experience nor the right to vote their executive before.

Presidential systems fail in most nations, and if they become democracies again they switch to parliamentary system. As long as people got to vote for there head of state in america i do not think most citizens would mind a semi presidential or parliamentary system. I remember reading some biography in college and it went on about how most people (american too) in the late 19th century thought parliamentary system was the natural democratic progression.

Tenure of Office Act (1867) this is what johnson was impeached for, violation of this law requiring senatorial consent to dismiss department secretaries. If johnson was convicted on his impeachment, and the power for consent of removal was somehow moved to the House, I could see the speaker becoming a de facto prime minister.

Myers v. United States a later case on this issue
 
Presidential systems fail in most nations, and if they become democracies again they switch to parliamentary system. As long as people got to vote for there head of state in america i do not think most citizens would mind a semi presidential or parliamentary system. I remember reading some biography in college and it went on about how most people (american too) in the late 19th century thought parliamentary system was the natural democratic progression.

Tenure of Office Act (1867) this is what johnson was impeached for, violation of this law requiring senatorial consent to dismiss department secretaries. If johnson was convicted on his impeachment, and the power for consent of removal was somehow moved to the House, I could see the speaker becoming a de facto prime minister.

Myers v. United States a later case on this issue

Better prove this presidential government failure using statistics. % of Total number of parliament government, presidential government, absolute monarchy vs successful based on GDP per capita. If you meant size of economy, the current largest economy for a century has been presidential, the upcoming superpower is an authoritarian one communist. Gone are the days that parliamentary system is the system for superpowers.

Secondly, USA isn't any other nation.

The most important fact you skipped is you just cannot turn a blind eye on the voters. Sure if the voters want to give up their right to vote the president and surrender it to congress. Americans can't even give up the right to bear arms.

Think about this, congress is voted by their locality, who are used to vote directly an executive. Take that right to vote from executive, do you think the congressman/senator would remain in office?
 
Better prove this presidential government failure using statistics. % of Total number of parliament government, presidential government, absolute monarchy vs successful based on GDP per capita. If you meant size of economy, the current largest economy for a century has been presidential, the upcoming superpower is an authoritarian one communist. Gone are the days that parliamentary system is the system for superpowers.

Secondly, USA isn't any other nation.

The most important fact you skipped is you just cannot turn a blind eye on the voters. Sure if the voters want to give up their right to vote the president and surrender it to congress. Americans can't even give up the right to bear arms.

Think about this, congress is voted by their locality, who are used to vote directly an executive. Take that right to vote from executive, do you think the congressman/senator would remain in office?

Yes, because they would still get to vote for the President of the United States (head of state, with possible reserve powers), just not a prime minister like official(that runs the government and answerable to the lower house). Sorry I do not feel like looking up every failed presidential system, but I believe most of them are in south america and africa. And I admit I got that piece from political science classes from college (university for non americans), but it makes sense. Put a lot of power in one person's hands with a public "mandate" and not answerable to anyone for years at time, you get a dictator pretty often that doesn't want to give up power. a lot easier then if they are answerable to a lower house, of course that happens too.

The only way a presidential system doesn't turn into a dictatorship is a strong tradition of rule of law and luck, america has come close a couple time even, and now we even have the imperial presidency, that most have to admit is more power then the founder's intended by quite a lot (obviously arguably constitutional though).
 
What about having Andrew Jackson winning the controversial, 1824 President election, followed by the 1828 and 1832, as a semi-military based cabinet and administration (similar to Grant's) leading to a new constitution being formed in 1836, under President William H. Harrison, who beats Martin Van Buren.

The President, wields significant influence and authority, especially in the fields of national security and foreign policy. The president holds the nation's most senior office, and outranks all other politicians. The president's greatest power is their ability to choose the prime minister.

However, Congress has the sole power to dismiss the Prime Minister's government, the president is forced to name a prime minister who can command the support of a majority in the assembly.

While it is the Prime Minister and Congress that oversee much of the nation's actual day-to-day affairs.
 
The big exception is Italy, where the requirement that the government maintain both houses' confidence has led to a lot of instability lately.

The Italian PM, Renzi is presentely trying to remove the necessity for the PM to retain the confidence of the ITalian Senate.
 
I think having a PoD after the US Constitution is impossible. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much someone decides Congress takes a lead, becomes more assertive, and Presidents are weak willed and left not wanting to use what powers they have (why would anyone want to become President to not use powers? And why would weak willed individuals have the confidence or will to go on to run for president or win). There's the problem that because of Adams' peculiar ability to piss people off without attempting to, already caused OTL to have a Senate that will not allow the President of the Senate (the Vice President) to have any real power or say, and even to the point of never establishing "permanent" rules like the House. It's extremely hard to take our Constitution and make it a parliament without having to rewrite just about every section. You can't just make it a parliamentary govt through the bureaucracy changing how they do things but without changing the Constitution; that's impossible. Congress doesn't have the powers for a Speaker of the House to be like the Prime Minister, nor is there any real equivalent in the Senate until the modern era. The US Senate Majority leader is the leader of the majority of the majority now-a-days; a possibility of something like what happened in the NY state senate is impossible (2 Democrats vote in a "coup" with the Republican minority to elect a new "majority" leaderhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_York_State_Senate_leadership_crisis ).

Not to mention it's hard to have a parliament in which you have only two national parties and a winner-takes-all elections; the US Constitution is written in such a manner that it unintentionally produces results that encourages only two parties, there's no benefit in coming in second let alone third; if the VP was still the first-runner-up then yes you MIGHT get three parties because their's a prize for second place; you'll always have one more party than there is a prize for position ranking in vote.

I'd like to add to this AHC in asking respondents to explain why, and how, Constitutional amendments produce a change to a parliament and why Americans go along with it. Amendments are actually quite rare considering how many have been considered and how many made it.
 
I think having a PoD after the US Constitution is impossible. The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much someone decides Congress takes a lead, becomes more assertive, and Presidents are weak willed and left not wanting to use what powers they have (why would anyone want to become President to not use powers? And why would weak willed individuals have the confidence or will to go on to run for president or win). There's the problem that because of Adams' peculiar ability to piss people off without attempting to, already caused OTL to have a Senate that will not allow the President of the Senate (the Vice President) to have any real power or say, and even to the point of never establishing "permanent" rules like the House. It's extremely hard to take our Constitution and make it a parliament without having to rewrite just about every section. You can't just make it a parliamentary govt through the bureaucracy changing how they do things but without changing the Constitution; that's impossible. Congress doesn't have the powers for a Speaker of the House to be like the Prime Minister, nor is there any real equivalent in the Senate until the modern era. The US Senate Majority leader is the leader of the majority of the majority now-a-days; a possibility of something like what happened in the NY state senate is impossible (2 Democrats vote in a "coup" with the Republican minority to elect a new "majority" leaderhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_New_York_State_Senate_leadership_crisis ).

Not to mention it's hard to have a parliament in which you have only two national parties and a winner-takes-all elections; the US Constitution is written in such a manner that it unintentionally produces results that encourages only two parties, there's no benefit in coming in second let alone third; if the VP was still the first-runner-up then yes you MIGHT get three parties because their's a prize for second place; you'll always have one more party than there is a prize for position ranking in vote.

I'd like to add to this AHC in asking respondents to explain why, and how, Constitutional amendments produce a change to a parliament and why Americans go along with it. Amendments are actually quite rare considering how many have been considered and how many made it.


The hardest thing to get around is the winner takes all system. But with a couple supreme court decisions going the other way and a couple constitutional conventions (traditions that almost have the force of the constitution, not the assembly to writes a new constitution) you could have something close to a parliamentary system. And once america gets used to it, you could pass a couple of amendments and you could formally have one.

There were a couple weak president's when it was mainly the sole prerogative of the wasp to be elected to the presidency.
Possible Amendment:
All executive powers of the president not specifically named shall be delegated and exercised by a Secretary General who shall appointed by the President with advise and consent of the House of Representatives.

All Department Secretaries and the Secretary General may be removed by a majority vote of the House of Representatives, or a two-thirds vote of the Senate.



This one amendment could of changed the whole constitutional arrangement.
 
The hardest thing to get around is the winner takes all system. But with a couple supreme court decisions going the other way and a couple constitutional conventions (traditions that almost have the force of the constitution, not the assembly to writes a new constitution) you could have something close to a parliamentary system. And once america gets used to it, you could pass a couple of amendments and you could formally have one.

There were a couple weak president's when it was mainly the sole prerogative of the wasp to be elected to the presidency.
Possible Amendment:
All executive powers of the president not specifically named shall be delegated and exercised by a Secretary General who shall appointed by the President with advise and consent of the House of Representatives.

All Department Secretaries and the Secretary General may be removed by a majority vote of the House of Representatives, or a two-thirds vote of the Senate.



This one amendment could of changed the whole constitutional arrangement.

But....why? One- SCOTUS simply WON'T do changes to the US Constitution, because it can't. It can interpret what is there, but it can't force a literal change to the wording. Second- The House doesn't advise and consent on ANYTHING except a new vice president. The Senate advises and consents on all appointments and on treaties. Why in the world would Americans, and pols in particular, go in such a direction opposite of American tradition? All this idea of what COULD be done to change America into a parliamentary system ignores how Americans see the Founding Fathers as god-like and hyper-intelligent people who did perfection. For pete's sake the Capitol building has a giant mural in the dome showing Washington BECOMING A GOD, literally the title of the piece means just that.
 
But....why? One- SCOTUS simply WON'T do changes to the US Constitution, because it can't. It can interpret what is there, but it can't force a literal change to the wording. Second- The House doesn't advise and consent on ANYTHING except a new vice president. The Senate advises and consents on all appointments and on treaties. Why in the world would Americans, and pols in particular, go in such a direction opposite of American tradition? All this idea of what COULD be done to change America into a parliamentary system ignores how Americans see the Founding Fathers as god-like and hyper-intelligent people who did perfection. For pete's sake the Capitol building has a giant mural in the dome showing Washington BECOMING A GOD, literally the title of the piece means just that.

Now it would be impossible but in the 19th century it was just unlikely, because they could argue then that the founders created a great system that obviously was meant to evolve into a more democratic system as the state aged. I'm am talking about a time when they thought this was happening already and were fine with it, mostly.

Supreme Court doesn't write the constitution, but they stretch what is written so far, it almost had nothing in common with what is actually written at places. What does small farming that sells everything locally have to do with Interstate Commerce, not much but the supreme court stretched it far enough that the federal government can regulate small farming that is all sold within the state it is grown as interstate commerce. What does the abortion have to do with the right to privacy. Miranda rights warnings, where is it written in the constitution that you must be warned of your rights? Now I'm not saying these are bad, Actually I agree with all of those decisions, but "Constitutional?", more like an interpretation on an interpretation on a interpretation of something that might be slightly miss interpreted in the Constitution. the Supreme Court can almost make the Constitution say want they want. Which I actually think is a good thing, mostly, and almost the definition of precedent.
 
Top