1. George Washington (1789-1794)
2. Thomas Jefferson [D-R] (1795-1796)
3. John Adams [F] (1797-1800)
4. Thomas Jefferson [D-R] (1801-1808)
5. James Madison [D-R] (1809-1816)
6. James Monroe [D-R] (1817-1824)
7. John Quincy Adams [D-R] (1825-1826)
8. Andrew Jackson [D] (1827-1836)
9. Martin Van Buren [D] (1837-1840)
10. William Henry Harrison [W] (1841)
11. John Tyler (1841-1842)
12. Martin Van Buren [D] (1843-1844)
13. James Polk [D] (1845-1848)
14. Lewis Cass [D] (1849-1854)
15. Nathaniel Banks [Know Nothing] (1855-1856)
16. James Buchanan [D] (1857-1858)
17. William H. Seward [R] (1859-1868)
18. Ulysses S. Grant [R] (1869-1874)
19. Thomas A. Hendricks [D] (1875-1880)
20. James A. Garfield [R] (1881)
21. Chester A. Arthur [R] (1881-1882)
22. Winfield S. Hancock [D] (1883-1886)
23. William H. English [D] (1886)
24. Grover Cleveland [D] (1887-1888)
25. Benjamin Harrison [R] (1889-1890)
26. Grover Cleveland [D] (1891-1894)
27. William McKinley [R] (1895-1901)
28. Theodore Roosevelt [R] (1901-1910)
29. William Jennings Bryan [D] (1911-1918)
30. Warren G. Harding [R] (1919-1923)
31. Calvin Coolidge [R] (1923-1928)
32. Herbert Hoover [R] (1929-1930)
33. Franklin D. Roosevelt [D] (1931-1945)

The Electoral College, like so much of the Constitution, was an ugly compromise that's had ugly consequences for quite some time. So yesterday, I thought about this: what if the Founders just forgot about compromising and had Congress elect the President? If this ended up being what they decided on, it wouldn't be quite as controversial as we think--it would be mimicking how the Westminster and other parliamentary systems work, and there are plenty of people and political scientists who think those are better than presidential systems anyway.

To keep this really simple, here's the rule: Every two years, after Congress has its elections, the members of the House and Senate vote joinly for president and vice president, with each member getting one separate vote for each (so let's just avoid the whole 1800 election drama). A majority, not plurality, is required. They get a two year term that can be renewed as many times as possible, and can't be dumped early by a vote of no confidence (though the President could still be impeached/convicted under the same rules we know today).

When I get back from lunch, I'll pave out a really simple path of how I could see the succession of the presidency turn out before the end of World War II, by simply tallying up which parties had the most members of Congress in each two year period in real life. Obviously, the alternate history butterflies could make this way more complicated, but I don't want to spend much more time on this, and I think things are going to go very off the beaten path after World War II anyway, so I need to devote the time I am going to put into this to think about that.

congress passed a 1.5 trillion tax cut that is going to screw us for the next few years


i dont trust them to elect a president

Alright, Part 1 is up. Here are the highlights:
--Washington might call it a career after only six years, as he was considering not running again in real life after getting tired of all the bickering between the likes of Jefferson and Hamilton. If so, Jefferson, and not Cleveland, becomes the first president to serve on non-consecutive occasions.
--Things go pretty much the same up until the 1850s. Only minor differences are Jackson serves for ten years instead of eight, still sets up Van Buren as his successor, who gets blamed for the Panic of 1837 and loses to WHH. Van Buren comes back after Tyler pisses everyone off, but the Democrats still turn around to favoring annexing Texas, thus ditching Van Buren for Polk.
--The Whigs don't have enough members of Congress to ever win again, and Lewis Cass, a Democrat who was for popular sovereignty for slavery, has to navigate things like the Compromise of 1850 and Bleeding Kansas.
--1855-56 is the first term in which no party had a majority, so the brief Know Nothing Party becomes a kingmaker with anti-Democrats and elect Nathaniel Banks for one term, who in real life was the benefactor of such kingmaking to become Speaker.
--The big difference here is Seward instead of Lincoln as president of the Civil War era. The GOP first gains control here in 1858, and Lincoln lost to Douglas that year, so he might not have the political power to best Seward for party leadership. So much of history comes down to being in the right place at the right time. This might cause the Civil War to start a year or two early, and I don't know how that would change things, I wish I knew my Civil War history better. Assuming the Union still wins on similar grounds, and that Seward doesn't get assassinated (he survived the real life attempt), I see him getting bounced for Grant at some point as he wasn't willing to go as far as the Radical Republicans on Reconstruction. Seward probably is viewed as a very good but not contender for best President ever (as would likely be the case for Lincoln too if he didn't get killed).
--A few more of "right place at the right time" presidencies that change after that, but the big difference is Bryan holding the presidency for most of the 1910s, including World War I, since Wilson hadn't even been elected governor until 1910 and Bryan wielded so much power in the Democratic Party then. I'd be really curious to see how differently he would have conducted that war from Wilson, given that he had disputes with him in real life on that as Secretary of State.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I don't know enough about deep presidential history to comment, but pushing things up to the present day, don't you think this would make partisan gerrymandering 100 x worse?

I don't know about worse, but there would certainly be more at stake. And since the term itself dates all the way back to Elbridge Gerry it's not like it's never been a problem in American politics.

As long as politicians can draw the maps that influence party success you'll always have gerrymandering when a particular party is in a position to get away with it and it's pretty much always been that way, but I think the really troubling thing about gerrymandering today is how sophisticated it can be. The 2018 elections have mislead some people into concluding, "See? Gerrymandering isn't that big of a deal--Democrats won the House in spite of it--but I think that's exactly the wrong conclusion to draw.

Especially since so many of those gerrymandered maps have now aged several years. Let's see how they turn out when they get redrawn again after the census.

Nick has really been depressing lately.

Winter has sort of trickled into summer in these parts this year, he probably still hasn't shaken off the SAD.

Just popping in to say that bit about Lincoln not being a contender for greatest president if he hadn’t got shot is stupid. Thanks.

You're welcome!