Federalism should be abolished!: The alternatives

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah... understandable. But I fear that if you move those pork projects to the states, you'd have less unearthing of them as you do when they are in the Congressional record.

[MRT144]

surely you realize that mere knowledge isnt enough to change the procedure among an ignorant electorate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It helps though.

Though it can be used in both ways. While we deride Ted Stevens, Senator from Alaska, you know that Alaskans are happy that he's bringing money and jobs into their state. That's the problem right there. People hate pork in aggregate but don't want to give up the pork projects in their districts (ie, "they always should have expanded that highway, and I'm glad they are doing it now").

[MRT144]

exactly! the problem is that in the longrun this hurts everyone through waste while benefitting the average person marginally.

everything is bad except when you are directly benefitting from it and thats short sighted and ignorant

[Ramo]

The problem is the first past the post system. So voters pick local representation who can bring them pork, rather than a national ideology. And also that certain Senatorial districts (i.e. states) represent more people than others, so smaller states get disproportionate cash. So I'd like to see a system where one chamber is PR and the other is FPTP (with the PR chamber controlling the budget, like the House), and both chambers adhere to one person, one vote.

[notyoueither]

You could always give the cash to the states to pay for programs and let them decide how to spend it within guidelines.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by MRT144
because of...200 years of precident? i think socially, technologically and economically it is more feasible.

because of scale. it didn't work with 13 homogeneous colonies with a low population, it isn't going to work with 50 states and a more diverse and larger population.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by MRT144
But we are at a different time and place where it might be more feasible.

"More" feasible? In the age of nuclear weapons stockpiles, billion dollar highways, and Social Security and welfare?

The states can't be trusted to be mature as it is. States even fight over water. Recently Oklahoma sued Arkansas claiming we polluted their water from our poultry industry. Imagine if the water conflicts in the West, or if examples like OK-AR, were more than just lawsuits. I'm not talking about fighting, but you would see states passing tariffs on each other, and running amok like heathens. The federal government, in part, holds us together.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

You're overlooking another alternative to getting closer to regional choices: a parliamentary system.

Between the GOP and the Dems, you've really got 6 European-style political parties: A Christian Democrat party, a Tory party, and a Libertarian party (all wings of the GOP) and a Labor party, a Liberal-Democrat party, and a Green party (all wings of the Dems). To some extent, this breakdown is also regional: LA, Chicago, and New York Democrats tend to represent different wings of the party.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, necessarily, but it is one more option.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


"More" feasible? In the age of nuclear weapons stockpiles, billion dollar highways, and Social Security and welfare?

The states can't be trusted to be mature as it is. States even fight over water. Recently Oklahoma sued Arkansas claiming we polluted their water from our poultry industry. Imagine if the water conflicts in the West, or if examples like OK-AR, were more than just lawsuits. I'm not talking about fighting, but you would see states passing tariffs on each other, and running amok like heathens. The federal government, in part, holds us together.

Funny you should mention that. Before the federal government began to take a larger role in protecting the environment companies used to build their more heavily polluting plants along rivers flowing towards an adjacent state close to the state border. The host state would be appreciative of the jobs but there wouldn't be much pressure from constituents to address the pollution issue.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by DaShi
I disagree.

[Originally posted by joncha
I agree.

[snoopy369]

First past the post is indeed annoying. A state with 51% hardcore Republicans and 49% hardcore Democrats has two Republican senators. The opposite gives two democrat senators; both representing only part of their state. The problem with the Senate, really, is simply that there are only 2 of them per state; with 5 or 6 then you'd have (like the house) the ability to represent multiple groups. With only 2, you can't do proportional representation, as every state would have 1 of each party (well, nearly every state, maybe AK or MA or something would have 2 of one party, but even they don't have 75% registered as one party, do they?)