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

[Blue3]

If the United States of America had to change from having a federal government into either a



*Unitary government

Similar but not identical to the UK/Poland/Israel/France/Japan/Norway/Sweden/Finland/NewZealand/Chile/Spain/Portugal/Italy and the 150+ other unitary governments in the world

The national/unitary/central government can grant autonomy to subdivisions, but also can take them away and take direct control, change internal boundaries and subdivisions however they want, and can also define and change their relationship to those subdivisions/states however it wants

States only have the authority and power that the national/unitary government gives them, national law supersedes all state/local laws, no more states' rights

Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*also, the Senate is probably eliminated in this scenario



or




*Confederate government

Similar but not identical to the pre-Constitution Confederation, or the Confederate States of America, or the European Union, or the United Nations.

The national/confederal government can be responsible for some national defense, a common currency, freedom of movement and trade within, maintain borders with non-members, conduct diplomacy... and not much more
[no strong chief executive, very little taxing power, no national court system since the Congress/Senate would be the ultimate decider in the little legal area they have, and only allowed to go into debt in times of war]

Much more consensus-driven or possibly even unanimity needed, or no decisions and the possibility of a member to peacefully leave

At the national/confederal level: no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EPA, Food Stamps, economic stimulus, mandatory desegregation or religious disestablishment or even the bill of rights, neither pro-life/pro-choice or pro/anti-SSM at this level... etcetera. But states are free to choose however they wish, with each state more like its own country.

States can certainly try those things and even more "progressive" projects
(but it might be hard for the smaller states who want grand social projects, like single-payer healthcare, to actually afford it)

Wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*also, the House of Representatives is probably eliminated in this scenario (and it's probably up to each state in how its Senator is chosen, whether elected or chosen by state legislature or appointed by governor)



...which would you prefer for the United States in the very-near-future, if these two are the only choices?

[Blue3]

Unitary when Democrats are in power, Confederate when Republicans are in power (sane).

Lol, that's actually exactly the kind of mindset I've encountered a lot among Democrats/progressives, and a reason behind creating this thread. Now we have to choose!
(and Republicans probably feel similar too, but I would guess lean confederate... not sure what the proportion will be for them, though)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you suggest?

[Blue3]

Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government.

Unitary would still be constitutionally-limited by the judicial system, be divided between Congress and President and the Supreme Court, and be voted in by the people.
Not much different from a state government, or all those unitary governments I listed.

[Blue3]

Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government.

Unitary would still be constitutionally-limited by the judicial system, be divided between Congress and President and the Supreme Court, and be voted in by the people.
Not much different from a state government, or all those unitary governments I listed.

-Meaningless under unified progressive party control. At least there's some room for experimentation with the states.

You can still delegate to the states so they can experiment.





edit:

Could this at least be moved to Individual Politics? This subforum is quite inactive.

[Blue3]

It looks like Unitary is slightly winning.

Unitary is by far the favorite for Democrats.

Confederacy is favored by Republicans.

Independents are split, slightly favoring Confederacy more.

[Blue3]

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?

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

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.

[Blue3]

Relevant bump