Not Constitutionally. Practically, a general unfamiliarity with the Westminster System and a general preference for home-grown solutions that have been proven to work would kill the plan before it could get off the ground. In particular, our parties, major and minor, are not accustomed to coalition-building (they’re accustomed to the ‘big tent system’, which is related in effect but not the same); major parties would be unfamiliar with listening to people from minor parties, and minor parties would be unfamiliar with anyone listening to them at all. Might be interesting to see what the local equivalents to the Monster Raving Libertarian Party do with the ability to introduce bills.
I read this before realizing this was a zombie, but since this is The Dope and all… The NC Governor was given veto powers in 1996.
I think the only occasion where we might see this happen is if a polity with an existing parliamentary government decides to apply for statehood. Like if Quebec finally gets fed up with Canada and decides they want to be fed up with the US instead, they’d probably want to keep their parliamentary structure intact.
A likelier scenario is Quebec separates and the Maritime provinces apply for US statehood. The have parliamentary governments with no fixed terms and I see no reason they couldn’t keep them. It is still a republican form of government. Whether the US would be interested is a different question (almost certainly not).
Technically, Canada is not a republic; they still have a monarch and a governor who acts as the monarch’s representative.
Personally, I think a completely parliamentary system, with unseparated branches of government, might be considered to be not “republican” within the meaning of the Constitution. Although the technical meaning of “republic” as it existed in the late 18th Century was generally intended to contrast with monarchy, it was also very strongly felt at the time that separation of powers was inherently necessary in governments derived from the authority of the people. Clearly, the intent of Art. IV, §4’s language was to distinguish what form of government the states would have from some other common form of government at the time; was the purpose of the language merely to prevent states from having kings? Or was the purpose to prevent states from having governmental systems essentially identical to that of England, from which we had split, king or not?
As I pointed out back in post #2 (12 years ago!), the Supreme Court has deferred most of these issues to the judgment of Congress. If Nova Scotia’s residents suddenly decided they wanted the benefits of being United States citizens, and applied for admission of their “state” (probably Commonwealth, I imagine), it might be an interesting question whether Congress would insist upon a re-design of government to create legal separation of powers as a condition of admission.
One of the loonie perennial candidates for governor in Montana has as his entire platform that the state should go to a parliamentary form of government (the word he used was “premiership”, but his description is parliamentary). It was somewhat amusing to watch him debate: “What would you do to increase employment in Montana?” “I would institute a premiership.” “What would you do to protect Montana’s environment?” “I would institute a premiership.”
Well, at the time the US Constitution was adopted, there was separation of powers in Britain, indeed separation specifically is something Montesique used to define the English and. British system of that time frame. Parliamentry democracy as we know it now is very much a product of the 19th century.
Right, because, in practice, Canada acts more like Saudi Arabia than the US. 
I have occasionally wondered about the likelihood of this if Quebec did separate. The Maritimes would be quite isolated from the rest of Canada, and they might see it as a possible solution.
How would they be isolated any more than they are now? Unless the separation went very badly, there wouldn’t be a wall or anything. I really doubt the average person in New Brunswick drives to Ontario very frequently as it is.
Previous thread on topic: Is There Anything To Stop A US State From Having A Parliamentary Style of Government
From 18 months ago, so would still be a zombie, just not as decayed a zombie as this thread. 
Pennsylvania had a collective executive from 1776 to 1790. The Supreme Executive Council of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was composed of a President, a Vice-President, and a Council of 12 elected members.
It is at least highly debatable what separation of powers means, to what extent the Constitution required it for the U.S., and to what extent it has actually been enforced over the history of the U.S.:
NY always elected it’s governors by popular vote. Senators were selected by the legislature until 1912.
If the head of a state’s executive branch was actually given the title, “Grand High Poobah”, I would never, ever miss a chance to vote.
Well according to the US Congress in 1863 as upheld by SCOTUS in Virginia v. West Virginia (1871), a republican form of government may consist of a rump session of delegates self-appointed from selected sections of the state.
Does the Constitution set limits on terms for the Governors of States? For instance, if one of the States decided to change its constitution and allow Governors to be elected for 20 year terms would the feds step in? How about Governor for Life? (I’m sure making it hereditary would be a no no).
There is no constitutional limit on term lengths or limits for state elected officials.
One could make a strong argument that appointing a governor for life would not constitute a republican form of government, though. My guess is the courts would be reluctant to rule on this matter and declare it a political question, deferring to the judgment of the state legislature.
Back before he was a perennial candidate to various statewide and national office, Kelleher actually did get elected to the state constitutional convention that rewrote the state constitution in the early 70’s. He proposed the parliamentary system, there were a few hours of debate over it and (IIRC) he actually got something like 15% of the delegates to vote for it. I don’t think any of the various experts on state government who were present at the convention ever raised the objection that it wouldn’t be allowed by the federal constitution, so I’m assuming it would have been.
Damn you. 
I was going to point that out. The most famous President being Benjamin Franklin. The proper name for that type of government is the directorial system, and there’s nothing in the Constitution stopping a state from using it. Switzerland is inarguably a republic, & uses the system for all levels of government. The closest the US Consitution gets to mentioning the office of state governor is reference the “executive authority” of a state; which can easily be a premier or executive council.