Founders modeled US govt more like British govt

[polyharmonic]

When the Revolutionary War ended, the Founders created OTL system of govt with a powerful executive, coequal bicameral legislature and independent judiciary. The foundational principle is "separation of powers". It sounds good in theory but hasn't really worked that well. When different parties control POTUS, House and Senate, you often get gridlock.

But what if the founders decided against the whole "separation of powers" philosophy and modeled the new US federal govt more along the lines of Great Britain's?

Instead of a hereditary monarchy, the POTUS is an elected head of state but with powers and responsibilities more like the British monarch.

The House of Representatives is modeled more like the British House of Commons and elects the American Prime Minister who forms the cabinet.

US Senate is more like British House of Lords (but elected so no peerage) but with more limited powers and with the House being supreme.

How would US politics and history develop if the founders decided to model the US govt more along British lines?

 

[Thoresby]

The Founders did model the US Constitution fairly exactly on the British system of 1680's, which not coincidentally was when you first got reasonably developed and stable Colonial governments. The powers of a US President are pretty much identical to King William III, ditto the concept of seperating the judical element of the constitution. Even the US Senate is inspired by the British House of Lords, not only it's powers, functions and even some traditions (colour red), but even it's membership, i.e. appointed by state governments, not dissimilar from the adlection of Irish and Scottish peers to the Westminster House of Lords.

So the real question is what if the US founders model their new country on the British system of the 1780's rather than the 1680's and then you have to ask why? The system of the 1680's had been incorpated into Colonial governments and American political thought while the British system of the 1780's was precisely what they were rejecting.

 

[Skallagrim]

Hamilton advocated for pretty much adopting the British system, with an executive that took seat in the Legislative (as in the British parliamentary body), a Senate with members seated for life and open only to an upper class (in his ideal it would be comprised of those who had served as officers in the ARW and their direct male descendants, as represented in the Society of the Cincinnati, thus yielding an American aristocracy), with an army and navy pretty much exactly modeled on those of the British, and with near-verbatim adoption of all British legal jurisprudence. In his ideal vision the King and the Prime Minister would even be united into a single "supreme executive" (which he at once explicitly stated should be an elected monarch) who served for life-- thus actually creating an executive more powerful than in Britain.

So it would appear Hamilton is very much your guy for this. Adams was also in favour of a more British system, although not to the extent Hamilton was. Early in his career, Madison shared some of those views (although he was always decidely more opposed to a powerful central government). The (proto-)Federalists in general would soon prove to be the party sympathetic to both a more British-style government and a dimplomatic alliance with Britain (against revolutionary France).

Get a Federalist wank, especially a Hamiltonian wank, and you get your British system. But do take care to curb Hamilton's particular obsessions a little, or you'll instead get something that's one part a clone of Britain and one part an American version of militarised Prussia. Also consider in exactly what ways you want America to copy Britain: Hamilton favoured economic protectionism, whereas Britain at this time was rapidly becoming the world's foremost champion of free trade.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

When the Revolutionary War ended, the Founders created OTL system of govt with a powerful executive, coequal bicameral legislature and independent judiciary. The foundational principle is "separation of powers". It sounds good in theory but hasn't really worked that well. When different parties control POTUS, House and Senate, you often get gridlock.

But what if the founders decided against the whole "separation of powers" philosophy and modeled the new US federal govt more along the lines of Great Britain's?

They didn't, they formed a unicameral legislature with a weak executive. That turned out poorly so they replaced it with a stronger executive, coequal bicameral legislature and independent judiciary which worked far better

Gridlock when different parties control POTUS, Congress and the Senate is an example of the system working as intended. If you can get a sustained majority behind something it doesn't happen, which is what the designers wanted. The system is meant to slow things down, prevent momentary passions from ruling

The Founders wanted a separation of power because they didn't want the situation they had

 

[DominusNovus]

They didn't, they formed a unicameral legislature with a weak executive. That turned out poorly so they replaced it with a stronger executive, coequal bicameral legislature and independent judiciary which worked far better

Gridlock when different parties control POTUS, Congress and the Senate is an example of the system working as intended. If you can get a sustained majority behind something it doesn't happen, which is what the designers wanted. The system is meant to slow things down, prevent momentary passions from ruling

The Founders wanted a separation of power because they didn't want the situation they had

Precisely. The Seperation of Powers has worked amazingly well, because it prevents one faction from dominating the political arena. People like to complain about gridlock, but we need only look at many of the failed governments that strove to streamline processes to see what the alternative could be.

Simply put, the Founders needed to strengthen the Federal government in order to actual keep the country functioning. To do that, they needed to keep power divided, not only because that was the philosophical preference of most of them, but also of their opponents.

 

[polyharmonic]

Precisely. The Seperation of Powers has worked amazingly well, because it prevents one faction from dominating the political arena. People like to complain about gridlock, but we need only look at many of the failed governments that strove to streamline processes to see what the alternative could be.

Simply put, the Founders needed to strengthen the Federal government in order to actual keep the country functioning. To do that, they needed to keep power divided, not only because that was the philosophical preference of most of them, but also of their opponents.

I disagree. Most of the world uses some form of the parliamentary system and those work better than the American "Presidential" System. The countries that use some form of parliamentarian system work fine. I I don't know where people come from that say it is the source of failed governments. Most of Europe, Canada, Australia, etc are from from failing. It is the US form of govt that is failing more than the others.

If the USA used some form of the British system of the late 1700s, it would have worked just fine.

 

[Pylon_Mountain]

I disagree. Most of the world uses some form of the parliamentary system and those work better than the American "Presidential" System.

Define better. In what ways has the US political system itself hampered it's ability to effectively govern in ways that cannot be sufficiently explained by other problems (such as a difference in culture causing greater acceptance/rejection of social policies if social changes of the 20th century or the lack thereof are your primary marker).

Your particular complaints seem to be primary about gridlock, which I will put to you has very little to do with the particulars of our governmental system and more to do with the development of the two party system, figure out a way to encourage multi-party coalitions in the US and you'll likely solve much of that just as well as a parliamentary system would.

 

[Vuu]

You'd need to get rid of the states first, or at least significantly reduce their authority and amalgamate some

 

[Tonifranz]

When the Revolutionary War ended, the Founders created OTL system of govt with a powerful executive, coequal bicameral legislature and independent judiciary. The foundational principle is "separation of powers". It sounds good in theory but hasn't really worked that well. When different parties control POTUS, House and Senate, you often get gridlock.

But what if the founders decided against the whole "separation of powers" philosophy and modeled the new US federal govt more along the lines of Great Britain's?

Instead of a hereditary monarchy, the POTUS is an elected head of state but with powers and responsibilities more like the British monarch.

The House of Representatives is modeled more like the British House of Commons and elects the American Prime Minister who forms the cabinet.

US Senate is more like British House of Lords (but elected so no peerage) but with more limited powers and with the House being supreme.

How would US politics and history develop if the founders decided to model the US govt more along British lines?

In the 1780s the British system has an active executive king who could appoint a PM against the wishes of the Commons majority (see George III and Pitt in 1783), the Commons and Lords are equal in footing,and there are no parties but merely factions like Pitt’s faction, Fox’s faction, The King’s Friends, etc. What are the US going to copy since Britain itself has not yet developed a modern Westminster system that we know today?

 

[Anaxagoras]

The foundational principle is "separation of powers". It sounds good in theory but hasn't really worked that well.

On the contrary, it has worked brilliantly and proves the manifest genius of the Founding Fathers.

 

[DominusNovus]

I disagree. Most of the world uses some form of the parliamentary system and those work better than the American "Presidential" System. The countries that use some form of parliamentarian system work fine. I I don't know where people come from that say it is the source of failed governments. Most of Europe, Canada, Australia, etc are from from failing. It is the US form of govt that is failing more than the others.

If the USA used some form of the British system of the late 1700s, it would have worked just fine.

I'll invite you to tell me where I said that parliamentarian systems are the source of governmental failures. I'll also invite you to tell me where the US government is failing more than others.

I'll invite you to do so without turning this into a debate about the current state of US politics, and, if you want to be particularly cordial, I'd invite you to also avoid scare quotes around the positions with which you disagree.

 

[Thoresby]

When the Revolutionary War ended, the Founders created OTL system of govt with a powerful executive, coequal bicameral legislature and independent judiciary. The foundational principle is "separation of powers". It sounds good in theory but hasn't really worked that well. When different parties control POTUS, House and Senate, you often get gridlock.

But what if the founders decided against the whole "separation of powers" philosophy and modeled the new US federal govt more along the lines of Great Britain's?

On the contrary, it has worked brilliantly and proves the manifest genius of the Founding Fathers.

It really wasn't genius on the part of the American founding fathers to copy an already existing system. The UK had already had effectively lifetime appointment to the judicial branch since 1688 and while the role of interpreter of the constitution has made the US Supreme Court extremely powerful it isn't any more "separate" then under the British system, in fact when you consider the prosecutorial system I'd say the US legal system is overall less separate from the Executive than the UK.