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?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Seriously though, the principle of federalism is good for a country like the US. It's the way it's put into practice that poses problem.

[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?

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What do you suggest?

I think the division of power between States and the Federal Government needs a complete overhaul. It was written for a time when governments in general took up very different tasks than those they have today. The constitution's enumeration of federal powers says essentially nothing about these new competencies, and this results in continuous legal battles to understand what Congress can and can't do (and artifices like NFIB vs Sebelius to justify Congress taking up powers that it doesn't really have). We need a much more comprehensive division of powers that addresses these various issues. I think a good idea could be to look into more modern federal States, like Germany.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Confederate. Unitary suggests the possibility of unlimited government.

[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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[RFayette]

I'm a good ol rebel.

This.  I would be absolutely elated if we could finally outlaw abortion in conservative states, which would be possible with a more decentralized federal government.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     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).

[angus]

confederacy* (I/O)

*local option regarding local tax and zoning laws, but with open borders and a common currency.  Something like the Rheinbund, but without aristocracy, kings, dukes, or Napoleon.  That confederation was above all a military alliance, which I think is the important part:  common defense.  Let each decide how good its schools and hospitals ought to be, but there should be free trade among them and a common army and navy for the protection of all.  Also, there should be something in the original contract about not allowing extermination of all aliens, as in the current episode of Supergirl, and in the current presidential administration of the United States.

[js4482]

I would find it difficult to familarise myself with 50 different sets of laws. In my opinion, it's better to have one central government that make laws throughout the entire nation so everyone in the country lives under equal regulations.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

     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 have this logic, but conclude unitary.

[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.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Considering that there probably wouldn't be an Electoral College in a unitary state (since there are no states anymore) and considering that the Republicans won the popular vote only once in the the last seven presidential elections, I'd say unitary.

[White Trash]

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.

[RFayette]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[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?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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.