Languish.org

At the Constitutional convention of 1789, it was an eclectic time for constitution wonks who enjoyed drafting their own plans of government. As such, we had several plans for a new constitution that came under consideration. Essentially a compromise plan, integrating elements of the New Jersey and Virginia plans prevailed, as some may remember from 12th grade civics this was the plan of Roger Sherman of Connecticut (the "Connecticut Compromise".)

I've included some diagrams of the various plans for your learned review. (Virginia Plan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/VirginiaPlan.png), Pinckney Plan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/PinckneyPlan.png), New Jersey Plan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/NewJerseyPlan.png),Hamilton Plan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/HamiltonPlan.png))

Key points:

Hamilton Plan - National executive is elected indirectly through an electoral college to a life term. This executive office was intended to be a sort of "Republican Monarch" and wouldn't be too involved in the day-to-day running of government but would have a power of absolute veto and would be responsible for appointing cabinet officers and military officers above a certain rank.

The lower house of government was elected by the people to 3 year terms, the upper house or Senate was selected by State legislatures to life terms. Interestingly, the Senate had the power to veto any state law they found unfit. The Senate also appointed State governors.

New Jersey Plan - Very similar to the articles of confederation. Slightly beefed up Federal government, but with each State having equal representation. Further, State representatives voted as a caucus and final votes were tallied based on the number of State caucuses voting yea or nay. The Federal executive was to be a council, appointed to one year terms by the legislature. State governments could unilaterally call a vote to have executive council members removed. States would be responsible for funding a national treasury proportional to either population or property taxes collected in the State.

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.

Virginia Plan - Often called the "Large State plan." The lower house would be elected, with representation proportional to population. The lower house would elect members of the upper house, but they would be nominated for said election by their state legislatures. The upper house had veto power over State legislature legislation. The upper house would elect the national executive (one term limit.)  It does not appear the national executive would have veto power directly, but would be allowed to select a subset of the higher level Federal courts to a "council of revision" that could review and veto legislation.

Sherman Plan - Essentially the plan they actually voted on.

A plan that involves rejoining civilization, which is to say the Empire.

Languish themed plans:

The Neil Plan - Not really a constitutional plan, just a form of absolute government centered around a core group who worships Neil and carries out his iron will.

The Monoriu Plan - Government is ran mostly by bureaucrats with a few elected positions, but the votes are auctioned off like bonds to the highest bidder. No taxes whatsoever, all government services are paid for via user fees.

CountDeMoney Plan - A plan of action. Initially all the wealthy are lynched and ritually burned by an angry amorphous mob of college students, minorities and poor people and their ashes are spread to the winds. Afterward, government is ran by various Committees of Public safety selected from the mob, who direct their enforcers to root out and kill any capitalist interests and to investigate if anyone has become "too" wealthy.

DGuller Plan - Government isn't too different than what we have now, but there is no voting. Instead a combination of statistical models and predictions markets are used to divine the will of the electorate.

We need a plan where states send a offering of female virgins to their beloved dictator for life. Also, timmay is proscribed.

None of the above, you should have gone with a Parliamentary democracy.   But no, you guys had to make like a bunch of EU modders and experiment with a bunch of what ifs.  Too bad you can't just exit, delete the mods and restart.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2012, 09:26:40 AM
None of the above, you should have gone with a Parliamentary democracy.   But no, you guys had to make like a bunch of EU modders and experiment with a bunch of what ifs.  Too bad you can't just exit, delete the mods and restart.

The Hamilton plan was fairly similar to that. There was a Senate President under the Hamilton plan who apparently would function similar to the British Prime Minister. If we had adopted the Hamilton plan most likely the elected executive would functionally be akin to your Governor-General and the Senate leader would be akin to your PM.

Where it gets different is the Senate wasn't directly elected even, so the head of government would be more removed from the electorate if that system persisted. I would probably guess if we had adopted the Hamilton plan over time the lower House would take precedence and the leader of that House would become paramount.

The other delegates to the convention all basically said Hamilton's plan was good, but essentially the same as the system the British used and thus they would not adopt it. So it basically is the parliamentary option.

Hamilton's plan in its purity was definitely a bit too "English" for public consumption, and a lot of the Convention never trusted him anyway, but his was big-picture unionist, God bless him.   It took Madison quite a bit of effort to tone him down.

I was definitely not a fan of the Virginia Plan--too much cross pollination with state government--and Pickney's approach was way too unworkable, but I liked his opinion that Senators shouldn't have even been paid.  Imagine how that would go over today.  :lol:

I gotta go back and read some books on the Convention, haven't read any in a while;  in my opinion, it was more interesting than the 2nd Continental Congress.  What I liked about it was all the "little battles", like whether Federal reps could hold state titles, how they would be paid, etc.  Amazing debates.  Shame Madison was the only one to keep real notes.  Imagine if there were a stenographer present.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2012, 09:12:12 AM
CountDeMoney Plan - A plan of action. Initially all the wealthy are lynched and ritually burned by an angry amorphous mob of college students, minorities and poor people and their ashes are spread to the winds. Afterward, government is ran by various Committees of Public safety selected from the mob, who direct their enforcers to root out and kill any capitalist interests and to investigate if anyone has become "too" wealthy.

Daddy like.  The only good Republican is a French Republican.  :frog: :frog: :frog:

Can I be the matriarch of the Nanny State? :)

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2012, 09:12:12 AM
The Neil Plan - Not really a constitutional plan, just a form of absolute government centered around a core group who worships Neil and carries out his iron will.

The God-Emperor commands you to... enact socialized medicine and stop carrying handguns.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

QuoteCountDeMoney Plan - A plan of action. Initially all the wealthy are lynched and ritually burned by an angry amorphous mob of college students, minorities and poor people and their ashes are spread to the winds. Afterward, government is ran by various Committees of Public safety selected from the mob, who direct their enforcers to root out and kill any capitalist interests and to investigate if anyone has become "too" wealthy.

Unless CdM gets a job, in which case his class warfare attitudes will subside and the nature of the government will revolve around whoever can get atomic weapons deployed on China the fastest.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2012, 09:26:40 AM
None of the above, you should have gone with a Parliamentary democracy.   

This.

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

One important aspect of a parliamentary republic that is at least not mentioned in your description of Hamilton's model is that the actual head of government (=prime minister) is responsible to the lower chamber.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
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

Quote from: Zanza on November 08, 2012, 01:36:35 PM
One important aspect of a parliamentary republic that is at least not mentioned in your description of Hamilton's model is that the actual head of government (=prime minister) is responsible to the lower chamber.

Well, like I said, Hamilton's model was based on the extant British system. In the British system you still had many of the Prime Ministers coming from the Lords during that era. Also, as the British system developed a lot of what we know as the modern Westminster system evolved over time. In the 1780s for example a Prime Minister could hang onto office for years without being able to get things done in the Commons. This is because technically (and even still today) the monarch has the theoretical power to keep whatever minister they want and no one can force them to change. That's just pointless constitutional theory in the modern Westminster system, but it was fact under George III. At various points several of his ministers (notably North) came to him basically begging to step down and call a new election, because they were so thoroughly unable to get things done in the commons it was paralyzing government. But George III basically browbeat North into staying on and refused any compromise candidates.

Hamilton's plan did not clearly delineate a "Head of Government." Just based on what we know, it "feels" like maybe it would have been President of the Senate, at least at first. But who knows how it would have developed at the time. The type of parliamentary government you are familiar with today simply did not exist in any form in 1789, but the Hamilton plan represented a close proxy to the British system (his plan is sometimes called the British Plan) and given how it evolved in Britain and elsewhere it's probable it would have evolved along similar lines in the U.S. But if you were expecting any system similar to say Germany or Britain's you would be sorely disappointed--that type of government simply had not been invented yet. It was not an option. But the ancestor of that form was an option.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 08, 2012, 02:07:29 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: Viking on November 08, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
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.

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

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.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 08, 2012, 08:12:43 AM

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.

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