Should we abolish the States? (read post before voting please)

[foadi]

No, I want to abolish the US. Break it into several nations

 

[Deuce]

I wouldn't suggest abolishing states, but I would consider the possibility of streamlining our government by eliminating some of the redundancies in varying state agencies.

Do we really need 50 departments of motor vehicles? How much could we improve our economy if businesses didn't have to comply with 50 different sets of rules?

 

[Deuce]

Well in the US the first-past-the-post system actually works since they only have two parties, they have no need for proportional representation, however the redistricting, corruption, people feeling unrepresented, and general lack of political interest are still issues.

I would say the reason we only have two parties is precisely because our system inherently favors that system.

 

[Shadowless]

No, that would be horrible. We are too large a country to be governed by one central government alone.

 

[Andalublue]

Well in the US the first-past-the-post system actually works since they only have two parties, they have no need for proportional representation,

Hasn't it occurred to you that the reason they only have two parties is because of the FPTP system? The Libertarian Party would have representation in Congress if there were some form of PR functioning.

 

[Carjosse]

I would say the reason we only have two parties is precisely because our system inherently favors that system.

Well I would say that Americans have not demonstrated they want more than two parties, in other countries with a FPTP system it is clear there needs a policy change as there is large support for other parties. The House of representatives has a very small representation error (percentage of seats to percentage of popular vote) that lines up almost exactly with the popular vote.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well I would say that Americans have not demonstrated they want more than two parties, in other countries with a FPTP system it is clear there needs a policy change as there is large support for other parties. The House of representatives has a very small representation error (percentage of seats to percentage of popular vote) that lines up almost exactly with the popular vote.

And...ahhh...the Senate???

And the Electoral College?

 

[Carjosse]

And...ahhh...the Senate???

And the Electoral College?

The Senate has even less of a representation error, being very close to 0%. The electoral college serves no purpose and does not need to exist though.

 

[clownboy]

The reason we chose to be a union of states was to preserve as much freedom for the citizen, as much direct representation as possible. The larger we grow in number, the harder and nearly impossible it is to do that under a federal government alone. I'd much rather go the other way - remove the federal and start again. This time write in clear grants of power and methods the states can take to remove any federal agency that oversteps. The nine robed ayatollahs need to be harnessed, there needs to be a check on their power and they must no longer be lifetime appointments.

 

[peepnklown]

States actually have little power anymore.

The States are sleeping giants. They groggily wake up once in a while and show their true power but, then are lulled to sleep. With a jumble of special interests, career politicians, and crooks I do not know if the sleeping giants will fully wake up. Sadly, what is next? Abolish the States and have only a Federal government? Then abolish the Supreme Court? Then abolish The Congress? In the end,…imperial president? Emperor? King? :shock:

 

[Frank Apisa]

The Senate has even less of a representation error, being very close to 0%. The electoral college serves no purpose and does not need to exist though.

You've got to be kidding here.

The state of Wyoming has less than 600,000 people represented in the Senate by 2 senators. The state of California has almost 39,000,000 people represented by 2 senators. And you think there is less representation error?

 

[EdwinWillers]

No, of course not. The idea is an absurdity, and for anyone who values their freedom, an extremely dangerous one - regardless what some may imagine the state of affairs now.

What needs to happen, imho, is for the states to take back the power that is legitimately and constitutionally theirs. We need to cut the federal government down to its legitimate constitutional size, restoring is purview to those explicitly enumerated powers and responsibilities given it in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

All of us, the states especially, need to quit allowing ourselves to be bribed by the federal government, bribed by our own money into dependency on Washington.

Our federal government has become the very monster the founders of this nation feared - most of the grievances listed in our Declaration of Independence have been reborn in contemporary terms, and fit to a tee our federal government. We've allowed the power of the federal government and its near infinitude of sub-level bureaucracies to expand incrementally, with each seemingly minor re-interpretation of a single phrase - a phrase argued vehemently for and against during the constitutional conventions -

"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence, and general Welfare of the United States;"

Irrespective of how some may interpret this sentence themselves, whether because of their own world views and/or interests, one fact stands unarguably clear: the broader and broader this sentence has been interpreted, the larger and larger has the size, and reach, and power of our federal government become.

Personally, I think it's time we pared that sentence back to its original meaning and intent. Only then will we be able to do anything about the dangerously bloated size and ever broadening power of our federal government.

 

[Carjosse]

You've got to be kidding here.

The state of Wyoming has less than 600,000 people represented in the Senate by 2 senators. The state of California has almost 39,000,000 people represented by 2 senators. And you think there is less representation error?

Well the entire purpose of the Senate is state equality (which I think is stupid but it is your system), what I am talking about is the proportion of seats won to the percentage of popular vote won and for the senate that number is pretty close to zero.

 

[fmw]

I vote other. Rather than eliminate the states, I would cut the federal government down to what is enumerated in the constitution and restore power to the states.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Well the entire purpose of the Senate is state equality (which I think is stupid but it is your system), what I am talking about is the proportion of seats won to the percentage of popular vote won and for the senate that number is pretty close to zero.

Sorry, Carjosse...I do not understand what you are talking about when you say, "...the proportion of seats won to the percentage of popular vote won and for the senate that number is pretty close to zero."

In any case...the way the Senate is populated is an abomination to the notion of one person...one vote. And the Senate...is an incredibly powerful body in this country.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I vote other. Rather than eliminate the states, I would cut the federal government down to what is enumerated in the constitution and restore power to the states.

Certainly one way to get back to "separate but equal drinking fountains."

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

No, I'm not talking about the United States of America. I'm talking about all the States that are with in it. Idaho, NY, Main, etc etc. Make this all just one nation under one government. In all but name it pretty much is that way anyways. States actually have little power anymore. The Federal Government can over ride them pretty much anytime that they want. Despite the 10th Amendment which pretty much everyone now a days knows is all but useless as it's never actually enforced.

There could be some advantages to it. Such as all taxes going towards the federal government instead of being split up between the States and the Feds. After time goes on it would probably even get rid of the ideology of "my state is the best!" and all that goes with it such as bigotry and hatred of those from other states. (and yes, I admit, that is something which I partake in when it comes to places like California and NYC) Another positive that I could think of is that our representatives in both the Senate and Congress would have to be elected by the whole US instead of just their states. This would probably help get rid of politicians that simply should not be there their entire lives. It would also certainly help prevent gerrymandering of voting districts as those could easily be done away with. This would also get rid of the electoral college way of voting.

I'm sure that there will be those opposed to this. I'm more interested in just how many people would be for it.

Doing so would be the end of the USA. Its like asking if we should remove the rungs from a ladder and still call it a ladder. It would no longer be a ladder, it would have to be called something else and would exist as something else entirely different from what it was intended to be.

But if you are trying to undermine the structure and culture of a country to destroy/take it over then you are on the right track. Other than that you seem to have no clue what the USA is.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I vote other. Rather than eliminate the states, I would cut the federal government down to what is enumerated in the constitution and restore power to the states.

ANd bring back slavery?

 

[longview]

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, Do we really need to give the federal government
any more power? If anything we need to allow the people more voice in how we are governed,
not less.

 

[digsbe]

No, if anything we need to give the states more power and more freedom from the federal government.

 

[Carjosse]

Sorry, Carjosse...I do not understand what you are talking about when you say, "...the proportion of seats won to the percentage of popular vote won and for the senate that number is pretty close to zero."

In any case...the way the Senate is populated is an abomination to the notion of one person...one vote. And the Senate...is an incredibly powerful body in this country.

The misrepresentation error:
Republicans: Won 51.7% of the vote and got ~55% of the seats, Error: ~3%
Democrats: 43.8% of the vote and got ~45% of the seats, Error: ~1%
Total Error: ~4%

In other words the the parties got almost the same percentage of seats as they had percentage of the popular vote. This to me says Americans do not want a third party.

 

[fmw]

ANd bring back slavery?

Slavery is not numerated in the constitution. Your question has nothing to do with anything.

 

[fmw]

Certainly one way to get back to "separate but equal drinking fountains."

Another gratuitous response unrelated to the constitution or the topic.

 

[fmw]

No, if anything we need to give the states more power and more freedom from the federal government.

I support a reorganization that would have the federal government work for the states and have the states provide all of its funding. That would move power closer to the people and even provide some positive competition between states.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Another gratuitous response unrelated to the constitution or the topic.

Not at all.

But it might be an uncomfortable response for you to consider...so I understand why you might want to characterize it that way...and why you commented as you did to Freedom's response.

I suggest the "uncomfortable" responses might be the ones containing ideas you ought to consider more carefully, though.