If the USA "reformed" the 50 states into 4 states (2 conservative, 2 liberal)

[Blue3]

I think it's apparent to everyone that there's too much gridlock.
Liberals are unhappy. Conservatives are unhappy.



One way to fix this is the idea in my other thread... abolish federalism and the states, to have one unicameral legislature of one non-federal unitary state. Perhaps switching from the 3-branches (presidential) system to a 1-branch (parliamentary) system. That way things could finally get done.



I do see another alternative. That would be a radical change, but not as radical. We keep the same system... but instead of having 50 states, we have 4 states, based on ideology (and obviously geographic proximity too).

There might be a couple cases where an old-50 "conservative" state is now in a new-4 "liberal" state, just for the sake of having borders that make sense (like Indiana and Arizona and Alaska, though they aren't deep-Republican like some other states or high population), or vice-versa (like Virginia, though it isn't deeply-Democratic). (Probably should make sure each of the 4 states has access to the ocean too, for trade purposes, so none are landlocked.)

Why do this?

The biggest debate between liberals and conservatives is over the role of the federal government. Liberal states want the government to do more. Conservatives states say not at the federal level, we don't want any part in it. Liberal states then say they can't do many of those things at a state level because they need a broader tax base to make it affordable and workable.

This could be a solution to that problem.

It works within the current system, so there's still separation of powers and checks and balances, both between federal-state and executive-legislative. There would only be 8 Senators, making the Senate be more like a council, but I think that would be cool and provide better accountability, and it would still be ideologically balanced with the Vice President to lean in on any ties. The House would still be large, and probably chaotic, but gridlock there wouldn't be as consequential because of this change. The states are now big enough to do the things they want the federal government to do. And the federal government can scale back what they do, to defer more domestic policymaking to the states. You get a low-tax federal government that's primary concerned with foreign policy, monetary policy, interstate highways/powerlines/pipelines/ecosystems, etc. You get 2 states that could enact single-payer healthcare, free public colleges, clean energy conversions, etc. And 2 states that can have their small state government too, if that's what they want. The debate to do some of those things at a federal level would persist, but gridlock would no longer prevent the half of the country that really wants those things from getting them because they other half really doesn't want those things. No longer would people need to joke about things like "if the south secedes again we should let them", because this should resolve that kind of tension.

The map would look something like this:

For the purposes of this discussion, just so they have names:
Pacifica (PC), Central (CE), Dixieland (DL), Yankeeland (YL)
... feel free to come up with better names




What do you think of this... if the USA "reformed" the 50 states into 4 states (2 "conservative-leaning" states and 2 "liberal-leaning" states)?

[dax00]

No, because acknowledging superiority of 2 points on the political spectrum would be like spitting in the face of people who wish to express themselves otherwise. It'd be an affront to the Constitution.

[RaphaelDLG]

Of course, I'd like it better than our current 50 state scenario, but the only situation in which it'd ever happen would be some cataclysmic scenario where the Constitution was rewritten, and even then a unitary scenario is more likely to happen.

One change I'd make is that each state should have 10 senators with multi member regionwide districts.

[Blue3]

No, because acknowledging superiority of 2 points on the political spectrum would be like spitting in the face of people who wish to express themselves otherwise. It'd be an affront to the Constitution.

It would not be an "affront to the Constitution," don't be so dramatic.

The overall point is the states being reformed into larger states would make the current system, and the current Constitution, work better. (And originally, I doubt the Founders imagined the system they came up with for 13 states working for 50 states and with a greatly-multiplied population). And when looking to reform it, ideological/policy leanings of the original 50 states should definitely be considered. It's a fact of politics, even if you and George Washington don't want to admit it.

[Badger]

i'd be in favor of select Gerrymandering to keep most of Indiana in Dixieland, and most of VA in Yankeeland.

[Knives]

That is the ugliest map ever.

[publicunofficial]

Doesn't this idea rely on these areas staying in their current political alignment forever? What happens when the black vote grows enough to swing Dixie to the left?

[Santander]

This would basically guarantee that the conservative states bankrupt themselves through tax cut-and-spend, while the liberal states destroy their economies through tax-and-spend.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You lost me at abolish federalism.

1. No state's boundaries can be altered except with the approval of that state. And no state can be denied its equal representation in the Senate either. And these exist as exemptions to the amendment process so there is no amending them out either through normal process, because they exist as a restriction on said process.

Bottomline, never gonna happen. This system is designed to be perpetual.

2. Separation of Powers and checks and balances are positives, not negatives in our system.

3. The division of power between the different levels of government is likewise. The problem is too much authority has been concentrated in Washington and that is something the founders never intended for, I can assure you.

This is what we need.

1. Independent, non-partisan redistricting. 
2. Public Campaign financing
3. Devolution of authority back to the states

Then our system would work much better as both designed and intended.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This takes a bad situation and makes it worse:

- gerrymandering of state borders
- continues (and codifies) the arbitrary division of states into red and blue (which is the real problem)
- new states are terribly shaped , probably ungovernable, would require second tier developed legislatures all over the place
- the job of senator and governor would become ridiculously overpowered

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My solution would be:

- single transferable vote for House
- abolition of "party control", divide leadership positions via d'Hondt of to form a Proporz system and an independent speaker that gives all parties proportional speaking time
- more power to backbenchers to raise floor votes
- strip powers from the senate to leave it as a consultative and deliberative chamber, rather than a place of initiation  of legislation
- all senators selected at one year terms by sortition of the population
- senate selects judicial, diplomatic etc. positions via irv, but can nominate other choices than presidential picks
- president's question period
- encourage states to devolve power to local governments
- national initiative and referendum
- abolish the electoral collage

[Sir Mohamed]

No, we should leave it as it is. With such large states, the state governments are too far away from the people.

[Boston Bread]

Republicans would be ultra screwed if the electoral vote was still in place, since Pacifica and Yankeeland are both safe D with a majority of EVs.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The biggest debate between liberals and conservatives is over the role of the federal government. Liberal states want the government to do more. Conservatives states say not at the federal level, we don't want any part in it. Liberal states then say they can't do many of those things at a state level because they need a broader tax base to make it affordable and workable.

I don't think this solves the reason liberals don't like devolution of power to the states.  They don't like it because:
1. They want the ability to borrow to fund their programs, which is harder for a government to do if it can't print its own currency.
2. They want the ability to use money from wealthy parts of the country to spend on poorer parts of the country.
3. They don't trust right-wing states to create policy and administer programs.

For conservatives, the big problem with your suggestion is that these new superstates are so big they will have a hard time serving local interests, plus they will leave more conservative areas within the more liberal states without any real possibility of political influence.

[This account no longer in use.]

But... why? What's the point?

[Mr. Reactionary]

But... why? What's the point?

Apparently the job of the government is to do something, anything as long as its something without regard to popularity or practicality or likely effect. Otherwise its "gridlock" which is 100% always bad always.

[Goldwater]

That border between "Pacifica" and "Central" looks awful.

EDIT: If you really want to consolidate the 50 states into so 4 states so badly, it would probably make the most sense to just use the official census regions. This is what it would look like:

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing is states are foremost supposed to be administrative units of government. Merging them into these monsters would cause administrative chaos (and the big states like Florida, Illiniois, New York and Californa are unwieldy enough as it is). Alaska and Hawaii would be reduced to colonial outposts.

[RaphaelDLG]

My solution would be:

- single transferable vote for House
- abolition of "party control", divide leadership positions via d'Hondt of to form a Proporz system and an independent speaker that gives all parties proportional speaking time
- more power to backbenchers to raise floor votes
- strip powers from the senate to leave it as a consultative and deliberative chamber, rather than a place of initiation  of legislation
- all senators selected at one year terms by sortition of the population
- senate selects judicial, diplomatic etc. positions via irv, but can nominate other choices than presidential picks
- president's question period
- encourage states to devolve power to local governments
- national initiative and referendum
- abolish the electoral collage

A woman after my own heart

[Orser67]

And these exist as exemptions to the amendment process so there is no amending them out either through normal process, because they exist as a restriction on said process.

But Article V can itself be amended, so this isn't that much of an obstacle.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Yeah! Let's segregate people by political views! When has that never worked???