United States under Parliamentary System

[liberalkid]

The year was 1992, and Ross Perot was elected to the Presidency of the United States after a last-second surge that capsized Bush and Clinton.

Among buisness deregulation and campaign finance reform, Perot unveils what he calls the "American Constitution".

His proposed constitution keeps many of the same features as the old, but with two key distinctions.

First, selling the idea that States are unwieldy, undemocratic, and that "If I was a buisnessman, I wouldn't hesitate to kiss a bunch of diseased poultry goodbye. I wouldn't mind giving the boot to unneeded workers. And so with costly states, they should go the way of the telegram"



The second of his reforms is to abolish the United States Senate, which he lambasts as a bastion of privilige. This, in conjunction with his destruction of states, leads to America eventually moving formally to a parliamentary system of government, with a first-past-the-post system

[liberalkid]

1994 House of Representatives Elections

President Perot has staked his career on the 1994 elections as a referedum on his leadership and his party. With numerous governors and Senators desperately trying to shop around for seats on a political wheel-go-round of seats in the House of Representatives, numerous alliances are built. In the smaller states, sitting-yet-unemployed governors ran against sitting Senators and sitting Representatives all at once.



The Democratic campaign was run by Congressman Dick Gephart



The Republican Campaign was run by Congressman Dick Armey



The newly formed Congressional Reform Party campaign was run by President Ross Perot

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, while the destruction of States had made it impossible to with acurracy show geographic swings, NBC news put together a rough approximation of previous guidelines

Red: Democratic: 188 (-70)
Blue: Republican: 112 (-64)
Green: Reform: 135 (+135)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Did Ross seriously destroy the idea of states?

[liberalkid]

Did Ross seriously destroy the idea of states?

To be fair to Ross, he never advocated anything close to it. I can just imagine him being in favor of it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Did Ross seriously destroy the idea of states?

To be fair to Ross, he never advocated anything close to it. I can just imagine him being in favor of it.

In all honesty, sounds like a horrible ideas.

[liberalkid]

With the abolition of the Lame-duck session, intense negotiations between the Perot administration and congressional Democrats, and separatly Republicans over who the Reform Congressional wing would back. Perot stipulated that

• Any party the Reform movement backed must be against free trade and NAFTA
• Any party the reform movement backed must be pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-democracy

The Republican Party had only Congressman Pat Buchannan as a reasonable alternative, but Perot was not pleased with his views on most other issues. In the end, a complex arrangement was assembled, with John Glenn as President of the United States, Perot as Speaker of the House, and Dick Gephart as Majority Leader.

It was generally thought that the parliamentary system Perot had excavated from the U.K. had both made him powerful (the leader of the party that held the balance of power), and destroyed him (by connecting Congress to the Presidency and making any leader who was briefly in power lose control, thus their preimership as well.

Thus going into the last regular Presidential Election:

President John Glenn (Democrat of Ohio)


Speaker of the House Ross Perot (Reform of Texas)


House Majority Leader Dick Gephart (Democrat of Missouri)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hm... I'd rather see transforming the Presidency into ceremonial office (much like Germany) with Prime Minister being a chief executive.

I also think states would be retained, regardless of Senate abolition. Germany, again, are good example of parliamentary federal government and federal system.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, IMO it should be like:

Ceremonial President: John Glenn

Prime Minister: Ross Perot

Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Representatives: Dick Gephardt (you don't need to be presiding officer to rule over a chamber, just ask every Senate Majority Leader).

[liberalkid]

The 1996 Parliamentary Election

1995 flew by exceedingly quickly. the Reform/Democratic coalition had voted down free trade legislation, had passed gun control and expanded abortion rights, as their manifesto had promised. Outside of that, however, little had been done.
Little time had been given to governing. Perot's reforms had dominated the political climate from 1992 until 1994. 1995 had seen the Reform-Democratic coalition swaying. Legislation had been put on hold, and the coalition made proposed legislation very very slow to be brought to the forefront. From 1995, although there were political issues, they would not be forthcoming. Each of the mainline parties had bitter leadership fights.


Reform had had a series of meetings with activists throughout the summer of 1995 and five main issues were presented to the Congressional cacaus: welfare reform, a flat tax, a balanced budget amendment and devolution of federal power to the regional and city governments.
The Reform Party, although solidly behind Perot at the moment, was presented with the challenge by former Governor of Colorado, Richard Lamm
Our two major political parties are not going to be able to govern in the long-term interests of our children.

We have America caught in this very strange Catch-22, where the best politics is the worst public policy.

A great nation is not always lucky enough to have politically popular solutions to its problems. No great nation in history has even borrowed its way to greatness.

A gentleman over here says, ''But we're trying.''

And boy, is that true. But no great nation in history has made their elections into public auctions and remained a great country.

What better place than Valley Forge to recognize again that sometimes freedom needs sacrifice.

Half a mile away from where we meet tonight, brave soldiers froze at Valley Forge 220 years ago. And the next generation accepted and paid off the debts that they ran up in fighting for our independence.

But not my generation. Oh, no. We just kept borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. We add to the nation's debt for programs that we ourselves do not earn. . . .

We can reform and renew America, but it will not be done by politics as usual.


Richard Lamm, Reform Congressman from Colorado, announcing his campaign to the leadership on January first, 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats were also divided, abet much more so. Three major fault lines were established. Major Democratic coalition members balked at most, if not all, of the Reform party's proposals. Welfare reform and the concept of a flat tax, specifically, ignited immense hatred amongst the grassroots activists. In October of 1995 the liberal groups met for a week of conferencing and unnoffically came together to back Congressman Tom Harkin of Iowa for Party leader.

Towards the other end of the spectrum, at the centre and centre-right of the party, the Democratic Leadership and Blue Dog Democratic groups coalesced around one of their own, Congressman Al Gore of Tennesse. Gore, a voice for fiscal restraint and military hawkishness, was a natural fit.

And straddleing the divide was the fearless leader Dick Gephardt, the esteemed Majority Leader of the House, trying to seek a consensus between the warring sides. He appealed to the trade unions that may back Harkin, but the fiscal moderates that would gravitate to Gore.

The 1996 Congressional potential leaders:
Congressman Tom Harkin of Iowa

Congressman Albert Gore of Tennessee

Congressman and Majority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri

[liberalkid]

Democratic Leadership Contest, 1996
Constituency Party Elections

Congressman Harkin racked up 1,149 delegates through the hodgepodge collection of proportional, base, and committee caucas delegate selection process. Winning crucial support from organized labour in the Rust Belt and northeast, he smothered Gephardt's campaign in the North. His shocking victories in numerous constituencies in the South was attributed to an agreement between white liberals and African-Americans to oppose Gore

Congressman Gore came in second place with 765 delegates, chiefly based in the non-Deep south and Mountain West. He was unable to break through in the North, nor on the West Coast. Disapointed by the finish, but not eliminated, Gore had remarkable success in wooing agrigarians and ranchers in the West. The results were in fact quite positive-they put him as the foremost spokesperson for moderation (and perhaps ending the career of one Bill Clinton) and pushed him into second place.

Majority Leader Gephardt was the clear loser. Going from first to last in one single election, it was an utmost disaster, as he picked up only 611 delegates. If African-Americans knocked the platform in the south from underneith Gore, then unions did it to Gephardt in the North. Picking up only Indiana from the Rust Belt (not coincidentally, the most conservative of unionized states) and an offhand win in New Jersey, this was a clear repudiation of the tenure of Gephardt by the Democratic base.

Within days Gephardt announced his resignation as Majority leader and his public support for Harkin.

Democratic Party Convention, March 1996

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[liberalkid]

Republican Leadership Contest-1996

Preview: With Dick Armey stepping down in the face of the losses in 1994, the Congressional Republican party fell into the hands of Congressman Tom Delay of Texas. However, his regional appeal was limited and he, very early on, bowed out of the race. Several candidates had emerged at that point

Congressman Bob Dole of Kansas: Dole had been a longtime member of the Senate, but had swam against the 1994 tide and had been elected to the House out of Reform-dominated Kansas. He was a highly experienced and politically cunning member of the House, who was considered on the moderate wing of the party.

Congressman Phil Gramm of Texas: A hard-rightist, especially in economic matters, the personally wealthy Gramm was the posterboy for the affluent right

Congressman Arlen Specter of Pennslvania: Personally popular, one of the few Republicans still in existence in Penn. Specter was a moderate with a pro-choice perspective on abortion.

Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia: Elected in 1994, a man titled "The brain of the Right" by Time Magazine had published as his platform a stridently conservative "Contract With America", in which he detailed what a Gingrich administration would look like if put into power


Congressman Dan Quayle of Indiana: Quayle was running as a young, fresh air conservative.


Congressman Pat Buchanan of Virginia: An unusual paleoconservative who many thought might have been more confortable in the Reform Party, he was running at the opposite of many members of his party in regards to free trade.


Congressman Bob Dornan of California: Bob Dornan was running as the most extreme social conservative in the race

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Congressional Republican Party voted first on those nominated by their peers. The first round of voting would occur 30 days after the nomination deadline.

[liberalkid]

Republican Congressional Party Private vote for Party Leader
112 Republican members of Congress
First Round of Balloting

Congressman Bob Dole:35
Congressman Newt Gingrich:32
Congressman Arlen Specter:16
Congressman Pat Buchanan:11
Congressman Phil Gramm: 10
Congressman Dan Quayle:5
Congressman Bob Dornan:3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chair ruled that any candidate not recieving more than ten votes would be eliminated from the second ballot. Quayle backed Gingrich and Dornan, after much consulting, back Buchanan.
Second Round of Balloting
Congressman Newt Gingrich:39
Congressman Arlen Specter:27
Congressman Bob Dole:25
Congressman Pat Buchanan:17
Congressman Phil Gramm:4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chair ruled any candidate without 20 or more votes would be disqualified, widely viewed as an anti-Pat move. Gramm endorsed Gingrich. Buchanan told his supporters to back Gingrich after negotiations with the Gingrich staff whereas Newt would drop free trade from his manifesto
Third Round of Balloting
Congressman Newt Gingrich: 59
Congressman Arlen Specter: 41
Congressman Bob Dole: 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newt Gingrich is formally endorsed by the Republican Congressional Party for the position of Chairman of the Republican Party



There was still, however, the matter of the constituency committees...

[liberalkid]

Things come undone.... Grassroots Republicans in 1996

The Republican constituency parties were extremely unhappy with the fact that they were left out of the leadership selection. Thus, a grassroots effort was made by the constituency parties to elect delegates loyal to the obscure, extremely conservative candidate Ambassador Alan Keyes, a former ambassador under Reagan who was not a member of Congress.

Keynes in 1996

This underground movement was highly succesful, and on April 4th, when all 435 district parties elected delegates to the national conference, 261 of them elected a pro-Keyes slate.

With disaster looming, a fateful compromise was met wherein the congressional district parties would allocate 1/2 of the delegates to the convention, and the other 1/2 would be from the members of Congress.





Anyhoo, any thoughts and or dislikes as i move onto the summer?

[Smid]

Hm... I'd rather see transforming the Presidency into ceremonial office (much like Germany) with Prime Minister being a chief executive.

I also think states would be retained, regardless of Senate abolition. Germany, again, are good example of parliamentary federal government and federal system.

I started work on a bit of a timeline/scenario similar to that, with the point of difference breaking from Watergate, where falling public confidence in the presidency led to constitutional changes to give more powers to the Congress (including that the Cabinet must be formed from members of the House of Reps and the Senate, and that members of Cabinet must continue to serve in Congress), and that down the track, a power struggle between the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress resulted in the Majority Leader in the House being seen as more of a Prime Minister and the Presidency being further weakened. By the time Bush was elected in 2000, the Congress was far more powerful than the Presidency and he was almost (but not quite) ceremonial. At the same time, Clinton and Obama both ran for the House, rather than the Senate, and by 2008, they did not contest the presidential primaries, but rather a leadership ballot to see who would be Opposition Leader, and (following the 2008 election), Prime Minister.

The thread is around here someplace. I was doing it more to lead to a parliamentary system for a United States PM4E scenario, rather than as an in-depth timeline.

[liberalkid]

Update,
Summer 1996 up until Election Day

With the three main parties having established their leaders (Gingrich, Harkin, Perot), the race began in earnest. With all 435 seats up for grabs, it was expected to be a hard fight.

Throughout the summer and up until the actual polling day, the public surveys indicated that Harkin was a few points ahead of Gingrich, with Perot 10 points behind both. Perot's money came from his own personal wealth, which was getting depleted quite quickly as each of the individual constituencies took time and money. The neoconservatives and free-market business types rallied around Gingrich, who they saw as the most natural candidate. The old labor and left constituencies were solidly behind Harkin. The center seemed up for grabs. No debates were held.

Harkin focused his candidacy on a renewed call for a War on Poverty and an infrastructure program; Gingrich emphasized tax reform and social issues; Perot was mainly harping on immigration and a flat tax or trade.

October 5th, 1996

Red: Democratic: 185 (-3)
Blue: Republican: 88 (-24)
Green: Reform: 162 (+27)

[liberalkid]

Analysis of '96, and 1996-2000
The parliamentary election of 1996 resulted in, as expected, a hung parliament and the need to select a new President. There was a very unusual dynamic between Reform and the other parties. Tom Harkin had run directly to the left and had tried to stand up for established liberal values; Gingrich ran on a hard right platform as well. Reform members voted narrowly to begin talks with the Republicans first, and a tentative agreement was met, called the Camp Dallas Accords. In it, they set the priorities for the upcoming administration, including:
1. The implementation of the flat tax, set at a 25% rate
2. Welfare reform including caps and state grants instead of the present system
3. Immigration restrictions
4. Ending the fairness doctrine

By the end of 1996 only the fairness doctrine had been eliminated; the coalition was still quite shaky.
President: President Ross Perot

Deputy President: Newt Gingrich


Speaker: Pat Choate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Loyal Opposition:

After failure to win outright in 1996, Representative Harkin resigned from his role as leader. Several contenders lined up and suggested interest:
Representative Mario Cuomo of New York
Representative John Kerry of Massachusetts
Representative Al Gore of Tennessee
Representative Bill Bradley of New Jersey
Representative Jesse Jackson of Illinois
Representative Bill Clinton of Arkansas (the only one elected in AK)
Representative Bob Kerrey of Nebraska (only one elected in NE)
Representative Bob Grahama of Florida

Very quickly, most of the remaining Democratic members lined up behind a few of the contenders, notably Cuomo and Gore. Jackson, while popular amongst the key African-American constituencies, was not widely accepted elsewhere. He endorsed Cuomo. The election for replacing Harkin was held in the constituency parties. Six remained on the ballot:
On the ballot and won a state with a plurity:
Cuomo (Red)
Bradley (Orange)
Clinton
Gore (Blue)
Kerrey (Grey)
Graham (Green)

Of 4,000 delegates:
Cuomo:1465
Bradley: 708
Clinton: 167
Gore:1101
Kerrey: 458
Graham: 101

Very quickly Bradley was selected as deputy leader, and the Cuomo/Bradley partnership began.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997: A year gone right.

The coalition continued onward, and passed very easily a bill lowering the tax rate to 25% across the board. This helped to further expand an already moderately strong economy, and growth went at a solid 5.6% across the quarters. Inflation was kept low due to interest rates staying on par under the control of Alan Greenspan. The economy wasn't enough to shield the budget from cuts, and the coalition hit it's first stumbling block over cutting military spending. However, a consensus was reached and for every $2 from social spending, $1 would be taken from the military.

Democrats howled at this gross injustice being allegedly forced on the poor, and the popularity of the coalition went down somewhat. A bye-election held for now UN-Ambassador Trent Lott's seat saw a huge gain for the Democrats. , though they didn't win outright. Indeed, in the rural areas, the Republican party saw a serious decline in their popularity. The South might not yet be ready to vote Democratic, but they weren't solidly Republican. the 1997 budget was the beginning of another crack in the not-so-solid Republican South.

Internationally, the US didn't intervene in Serbia and the tension in the former Eastern European states didn't touch the US. Perot kept the US out of any serious foreign intervention, and the US didn't have many exports with Japan. This would spell doom later, but for the moment we remained prosperous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998: A Breakdown.

1998 was the year of immigration. The issue of illegal immigration along the US-Mexican border came to a head, and the Perot ministry worked to create tough new restrictions and stronger enforcement. This badly alienated businessman who relied upon the labourers for cheap work, and created a huge backlash amongst the business communitee. A rebellion brewed in the Republican ranks amongst the New right capitalist members, formally calling themselves the Sunday Meeting Group. They were further motivated by the anti-free trade policies Perot took while in office, and formally broke as a parliamentary group on April 15th, 1998. Calling themselves the Progressive Bloc, they took away 39 Republican members, leaving only 211 Republican/Reform members of the coalition, or a minority. They were joined by 12 errant Democrats such as Bill Clinton who considered themselves far too moderate.
Thus, by party
Democrat: 173
Reform: 162
Progressive Bloc: 51
Republican: 49

218 members were necessary for a majority, though no group had enough.  A vote-by-vote basis for the Perot ministry was established, but it was doubtful how long it would last.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Indiana is republican no matter what