Choose Your 18th Century Plan of Government

[OttoVonBismarck]

Um, that is what the Hamilton plan was. It was basically a copy of the extant British system.

That is a pretty poor translation of Parliamentary Democracy

Well, like I'm saying, it wasn't modern parliamentary democracy. It was 18th century British democracy which was really a type of limited monarchy in which government functions were ran by ministers. The Lords still had real power, and were not elected by anyone and basically served for life (analogous to Hamilton's Senate, except he did provide for election via a special electoral college for the Senate.) A lot of the de jure power would lay in the hands of the Governor. But that's no different from the British government of the time. The King at that time had to approve all laws, treaties, had control of the military etc. However mostly due to tradition and fiscal concerns the monarch by that point was not that activist. George III was the most activist monarch since the late 1600s but even his daily interactions with government were minimal. He never even withheld royal assent once in his reign (though threat of it derailed legislation a few times.)

Because of how Hamilton structured the governor it was unlikely to become a real politically powerful position. Especially because a not-so-secret secret was he wanted Washington elected to the position and himself to be one of the high ministers. His view was Washington would be this national figure who mostly let his ministers run things. Now, which particular branch of the congress became all powerful over time and what role different officers and ministers came to play can never be known. But the British system didn't have that stuff fully worked out in 1789 either, it was only through time that things emerged the way they have.

Given its power over things like revenue bills it seems most likely the lower assembly would eventually more or less take over. It's impossible to say, but in 1789 the British Plan/Hamilton Plan was very similar to the government in the UK which eventually lead to the modern Westminster system so I would be surprised if it evolved all that different in the United States.

[Viking]

A westminster style system would never work in the US. The entire point of the westminster system is an elected dictatorship that is kept honest by the impartial civil service and HM loyal opposition.

[OttoVonBismarck]

A westminster style system would never work in the US. The entire point of the westminster system is an elected dictatorship that is kept honest by the impartial civil service and HM loyal opposition.

Hamilton's plan was thrown out basically because of the regionalism in the thirteen colonies. He basically did not want strong States and the States didn't want weak States, the States were the legal entities that actually had to approve the new constitution.

I think a Westminster style system could easily work in the United States, as it does in Canada or the UK. But I think if any type of parliamentary democracy would ever have actually developed here it would have been sort of like the German system. With constitutional States and a type of Federalism, and the no confidence mechanism in Germany would be a lot better for a pre-modern America as it would guarantee a successor before the current leader would be forced out...important given America was so sparsely populated and spread out it could take months just to get the legislature all in the same room.

[Razgovory]

Here I am, agreeing with Otto.  I think Germany is an excellent example of how a parliamentary system could work with a federal system.

[jimmy olsen]

The Hamilton system is pretty good. It's the only one I think that had the potential to work as well or better than the Sherman plan.

[jimmy olsen]

Pinckney Plan - The plan history forgot, and that was never fully written down anywhere. But a key note in this plan is it would have guaranteed one representative to the national congress per 1,000 residents. Those elected members of the lower house would then elect from their own body members to the upper House who would serve longer terms. It appears the upper house would have most of the legislative power day-to-day. The upper house would elect a national executive to a set term. The upper house would also have responsibility for "regulating state militias" and appointing members to the executive's council as well as appointing judges. There would also have been a council of revision, particulars not really covered, that would be responsible for reviewing legislation. This is how I'd vote, just because it would give us a lower House with 310,000 representatives.

Even the original apportionment of 30,000 people per representative would give us 10,000 representatives today.