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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.