If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:15:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?
#1
Unitary government (D)
#2
Unitary government (R)
#3
Unitary government (I/O)
#4
Confederate government (D)
#5
Confederate government (R)
#6
Confederate government (I/O)
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?  (Read 5548 times)
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,577
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2017, 12:41:45 PM »

There are already way too many states rights.. I'd get rid of it.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2017, 05:21:08 PM »

Confederate government, preferably with states being coalesced into regions.  Shifting every two or four years from mildly center-left governments to far-right governments and forcing the half of the country which dissents to submit to its will does not make for a sustainable political system.

This means condemning the citizens of 60-65% of the country to live under full (and, thanks to gerrymander, likely everlasting) far-right domination.

How so?  It would come down to how regional boundaries are drawn, or even the states themselves could be redrawn so that the reliably liberal and conservative-voting constituencies don't have to clash with each other.  Or the municipalities could have more power.  That would mean no more overreaching state laws repealing minimum wage increases and civil rights ordinances.

Very often "conservative-voting" constituencies are the first victims of conservative policies. I don't think the moral solution for the left is to abandon those voters to their conmen.

Packing Democrats and Republicans together is the best way to accentuate the trends that have made US politics so dysfunctional.

How is it abandonment if the people consented to those policies through their votes?  That way it's easier to give credit or blame to specific politicians or laws if those policies only affect the specific area.  If people are unhappy with the outcomes, they can either vote out their counsel members and mayors or move to the next town or city over which does things differently.

I think there's a good progressive case to be made for municipal rights over, say, states' rights.  It's much easier to move to another town or city than it is to move to a different state.  Obviously some laws would need to be universal so that they can be applied practically and protect individual rights, but it's likely the best possible way to address polarization as it exists now.

I disagree with Tony's 'conmen' analogy but his logic is sound otherwise.

Take Texas for example. The Democrats can't win on the statewide level, but it's not Washington D.C. Abandonment would entail leaving ~40% of voters to the 'other side', to say nothing of all the children, recent immigrants etc. Is really moral to leave all those people to no labour protections or environmental regulations? Or take the conservative side. Is it right to abandon Illinois' babies to abortion, her churches to anti-clerical bureaucrats, and her businesses to rapacious tax collectors?

If you really believe the other party's ideology is that wrong, that wicked, and that harmful, it's blatantly immoral to abandon people to it. Besides, the whole 'abandon them' notion has this weird judgmental God vibe, which is really unseemly coming from Atlas posters.

Under the status quo, a majority of Americans are living under a president that they did not vote for who's governing more and more like a dictator.  How is that any better than giving states and localities more flexibility so that they can do things their own way, whether it's for environmental regulations or labor protections or protecting peaceful immigrants from ICE thugs or legalizing dope?  You can make a case for or against those things, but giving people choice and more direct say in local politics is not "abandoning" them.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2017, 02:44:43 PM »

A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...)
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2017, 12:08:22 AM »

A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...)

Yes, unitary just means the national government has the last word... but like the UK, you can have highly-decentralized regions like Scotland with its own Parliament.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2017, 08:31:47 PM »

     I am of the opinion that the distribution of power in government should be localized, so that it can be more responsive to the interests and needs of the people who live under that government. As such, I choose Confederate (R).
I agree that authority requires centralization/federalization, but solutions require localization.

I vote Confederate.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 06, 2017, 05:40:08 AM »

U.S. it too large for a classical unitary country. Unitary country with some devolution would be better.
Logged
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,910


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2017, 05:57:51 PM »

The United States is too culturally, demographically, and politically diverse to operate a unitary state. Just because certain laws work in Connecticut, that doesn't mean that they would work in Wyoming necessarily.
So then the unitary government would only craft laws that would work universally... meaning they'd either pass fewer laws or they'd be more complex, in these cases.

But I'm struggling to think of a good example of what you could mean?
For example gun laws, heavily urbanized states and areas should have different gun laws from more rural less densely populated states.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2017, 11:57:43 PM »
« Edited: June 10, 2017, 11:59:46 PM by shua »

A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...)

Yes, unitary just means the national government has the last word... but like the UK, you can have highly-decentralized regions like Scotland with its own Parliament.

The difference between a federation and unitary as no constitutional limits to the unitary government vis a vis the subnational units, is that what you mean?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2017, 12:02:23 PM »

A lot of people in this thread seem to be under the impression that unitary states are always ultra-centralised affairs. If anything, a hypothetical unitary government would probably be less centralised, because there would be more focus on local government (the most important layer), which are often neglected by the current federal set-up. (I support federalism though, but if the other option is confederalism ...)

Yes, unitary just means the national government has the last word... but like the UK, you can have highly-decentralized regions like Scotland with its own Parliament.

The difference between a federation and unitary as no constitutional limits to the unitary government vis a vis the subnational units, is that what you mean?
It means the national government determines the relationship between it and the states, and that the national government can change it by passing a bill not needing a constitutional amendment.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2017, 03:02:40 PM »

I picked confederacy because it would be decentralized and reduce the imperialist tendencies of the US overseas.

Generally speaking I'd rather have secession than a civil war. I'd rather have a smaller government than a larger one. Given scarce resources I think it would quicken the move toward private solutions less reliant on government funding, subsidies or partnerships.
Logged
Spark
Spark498
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.00


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2017, 11:39:07 PM »

Confederacy
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2017, 03:21:37 AM »

I love how people are ignoring reality in this thread by pretending that a "confederacy" would be interested in localism (as  opposed to a Unitary system, which would presumably be far more localist)
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2017, 10:25:51 PM »

Relevant bump
Logged
Wakie77
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 352
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2017, 09:07:12 AM »

The problem with a Confederate form of government is that very little actually gets done.  One of the main complaints of Jefferson Davis was that he was unable to accomplish anything even amidst a war because the Confederate states refused to take even the smallest action unless it was overwhelmingly to their personal benefit.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,618
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2017, 12:23:52 PM »

Confederate, but at a level above the state level. Unify states so there's 8-12 total, and then have a confederation of that. No reason to keep the Dakotas separate.
Logged
Gary J
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 286
United Kingdom
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2017, 10:26:57 AM »

Neither option seems sensible.

The United States is too large and diverse for a unitary government.

The sort of weak conferderation suggested proved inadequate to the needs of a rural backwater polity in the 18th century, so how it could function effectively as the government of a 21st century super power is not obvious.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 13 queries.