Before the 12th amendment, the presidential candidate who got the second most electoral votes became the vice president. This meant they were usually different parties.
It occurred to me that one thing this achieved was always ensuring that there was someone in the room who would be willing to disagree with the president. He couldn’t surround himself with yes-men.
Vice president doesn’t have much power. Wouldn’t accomplish much.
Should probably get rid of the presidency and Senate, and just have a large house. Also reform the supreme court so it’s like a rotating pool of federal judges instead of lifetime corruption magnets.
Wouldn’t that just make it easier for one party to capture control of the government?
No? It’d be similar to today, except without the senate giving undue weight to low population areas, and the president doing whatever he wants. You’d probably also want to change the voting system to support ranked choice or similar, while you were waving your magic around.
In what way do you think it would be easier?
Taking over three branches of government would be harder than taking over just one, no?
The judicial is still separate in what I proposed, so there’s still at least two.
I don’t really think the separation of powers really holds up when they’re all elected in the same way, anyway. Not in a two-party system. We have a sort of incidental defense via staggered elections and terms, but as you can see the republicans are happy to collaborate across branches.
With no Senate or presidency, whoever controls the house could just pass a law to add justices until they control the judicial.
That’s how it works now with extra steps. The system doesn’t provide any defense when people are working as a party regardless of their branch.
It’s the extra steps that are the point though, right? It’s harder to get control of the presidency, Senate, and House than just controlling one of those.