Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 23, 2017, 06:40:26 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Poll
Question: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?
Unitary government (D)
Unitary government (R)
Unitary government (I/O)
Confederate government (D)
Confederate government (R)
Confederate government (I/O)
Show Pie Chart

Author Topic: If the USA had to change from federal to Unitary or Confederate, which one?  (Read 3615 times)
Cath
Cathcon
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20278
United States


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2017, 09:18:31 am »
Ignore

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.

Fascist.

*Pluriculturaidt.
Logged


America.
Green Line
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3883
United States


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2017, 12:41:45 pm »
Ignore

There are already way too many states rights.. I'd get rid of it.
Logged

Senator Scott, PPT
Ascott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5962
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.40

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2017, 05:21:08 pm »
Ignore

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

rbk
CrabCake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12742
Kiribati


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2017, 02:44:43 pm »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6764
United States


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2017, 12:08:22 am »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14922
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 05, 2017, 08:31:47 pm »
Ignore

     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

"America now is stumbling through the darkness of hatred and divisiveness. Our values, our principles, and our determination to succeed as a free and democratic people will give us a torch to light the way." - Gerald Ford

"Good speech and good looks covers man's every vice. Plain speech and plain looks covers man's every virtue."

Economic: 1.38
Social: -2.36
Claude Trollo
Kalwejt
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47934


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 06, 2017, 05:40:08 am »
Ignore

U.S. it too large for a classical unitary country. Unitary country with some devolution would be better.
Logged


Kal is like Strache when he pushed Jorg Haider out of the FPO, and we all know how that ended Sad
White Trash
Southern Gothic
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3726


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2017, 05:57:51 pm »
Ignore

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

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16444
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2017, 11:57:43 pm »
Ignore

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?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2017, 11:59:46 pm by shua »Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6764
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2017, 12:02:23 pm »
Ignore

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
Averros
Averros Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10077


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2017, 10:05:16 pm »
Ignore

Smaller countries have better governance. The US is much too big and much too centralized. Spread the wealth.
Logged
vanguard96
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 547
United States


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2017, 03:02:40 pm »
Ignore

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
Tinder Time with Tilden
Spark498
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2967
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: 1.22

P P P
View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2017, 11:39:07 pm »
Ignore

Confederacy
Logged





2020

President: Trump

Political Spectrum:
Economic: +1.47 (Centrist)
Social: 0.14 (Libertarian)
Foreign Policy: 4.52 (Neo-Con)
Cultural: 5.91 (Conservative)
rbk
CrabCake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12742
Kiribati


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2017, 03:21:37 am »
Ignore

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

]
Averros
Averros Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10077


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2017, 11:52:28 am »
Ignore

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 ...)

Local governments already play a large role in government and public life in the United States. The chief problem is not that they are neglected by either our states or federal government, but that they are ignored by their residents and local media.

There are few people in their communities to hold them to account because only a handful of interest groups and local elites bother to mobilize at all. Most Americans have very little understanding of how local government affects them aside from watching their property taxes and water charges (if they own property or hold a mortgage) and whatever goes on in their child's classroom (if they have school-age children).

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)

Maybe in general. I'm not sure that recent US history supports the idea that this would be the case here, however.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6764
United States


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2017, 10:25:51 pm »
Ignore

Relevant bump
Logged
Wakie77
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94
View Profile
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2017, 09:07:12 am »
Ignore

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
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9711
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

P P

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2017, 12:23:52 pm »
Ignore

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

I will NOT be accepting any result other than a victory for America's next President, Governor Gary Earl Johnson Angry
Gary J
Full Member
***
Posts: 221
United Kingdom
View Profile
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2017, 10:26:57 am »
Ignore

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] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines