What's the point of states?

[warpus]

The biggest difference in that regard between the USA and Canada is the century between the two of them. The US Constitution is a constitution of philosophers and idealists, concerned with doing things the right way, with great principles and whatnot. As such, it is focused on limiting federal powers in the name of democracy, division of powers, etc.

The Canadian constitution is a constitution of industrialists and rail barons, and it was written to get the job done, not to defend principles. It also helped that they could peek over the border to see the parts of America that didn't work so well. As such, it is focused on attributing each possible power to the level of government best suited to dealing with it efficiently (and then making sure there are rules on how to split anything that they might have forgotten, and anything that might change category, and so forth).

This resulted in a much stronger federal government to start. Anything congress can do, parliament also can, and parliament also throws in a few extra powers congress only wish they had. For example, parliament has exclusive power over all of criminal law and banks. Oh, and the definition of marriage, which came in handy about a decade ago. Throw in the fact that the Peace, Order and Good Government clause is basically Interstate Commerce on steroids (and I mean how the federal government read interstate commerce)...

So while the provinces are very defensive about the federal messing with provincial powers, their powers are a lot less likely to limit the federal government.

Funny, I never looked at it that way, but now that you've written it out, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Arwon]

Funnily enough, despite the intentions of the oroginal framers at Federation in 1901 here (be less centralised than Canada), compared to Australia these days, Canada seems to have fairly strong provincial governments and a weaker central government.

We have the broad residual power residing in the States but in practice this has gotten narrower and narrower over time via court decisions. Some of the clauses that have aided this have been the power to regulate corporations and the power over treaty obligations.

An example of this is where courts upholding federal intervention on environmental grounds (the court used Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention to uphold protection Franklin River in Tasmania against the Tasmanian government's wishes to build a dam). In other cases they've found for the Commonwealth on heritage, human rights, industrial relations, and native land title.

We also had a successful referendum in 1946 adding social services to the Commonwealth powers and 1967 with regards to Aboriginal affairs.

Australin states haven't been able to raise most taxes so for decades, we have a uniform tax code. The Commonwealth took over incomde tax in WW2, and a bunch of other taxes have been ruled excises (for example tobacco and alcohol franchise fees) and thus banned by the prohibition on states raising their own excises. The Commonwealth also have tight control of borrowing at a state level. Basically they only have a few sources of revenue (I think land tax, stamp duty, royalties) and are almost entirely dependent on transfers from the Commonwealth government.

With the uniform tax code we also have a strong system of horizontal fiscal equalisation, where the poorer states (South Australia, Tasmania, formerly Western Australia), formally get sales tax revenue transfers from the wealthier states (NSW, Victoria, now Western Australia) to ensure the same quality of services such as health and education are available everywhere are available to citizens in all states. There's a complex formula that looks at capacity to raise money (ie South Australia is mineral poor so can't make much royalties).

On the other hand, criminal and civil law is mostly in the hands of the states and so there's a lot of effort to harmonise the important stuff across jurisdictions.

All aspects of national elections are entirely national, administered by the Australian Public service under Commonwealth law.

The education and health systems are a mess of overlapping responsibilities with formal authority and funding coming from differnet levels of government, but are moving towards de facto centralisation and should probably be fully and formally centralised. Higher education is essentially federal but has some sort of joint administration by the states.

 

[dutchfire]

Look at Germany. Every province is literally forged out of history.

Like Niedersachsen?

 

[hangman]

Now, can you explain to me what business Wyoming and Utah have in existing? Or what about such silly entities as Delaware? If I travel between South Carolina and Georgia, by what purpose am I falling under a different sovereignty? They and all their cities are one geographical entity. If Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama were one state than that would make some measure of sense.

I don't think this was ever addressed specifically.

Utah was settled by Mormons in the early-mid 1800s. It has quite a strong, unique Mormonism-based culture and has as much of a claim to be a state as any.

Colorado was arbitrarily established after a gold rush, but since then, its excellent skiing and scenery have attracted a huge number of people, and it has developed a distinctly liberal culture along the front range.

Wyoming, on the other hand, has no business existing separately from Montana or Colorado or any of its neighbors.

Delaware is a colonial relic. Some argue it doesn't actually exist. In any case, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are utterly pointless today, although there are colonial-era reasons for why they exist.

In some cases, Natives also had an influence on certain boundaries. Kentucky was generally empty and used as hunting grounds by Cherokee, Shawnee, etc. when it was first settled by Anglo-Americans. I believe Kentucky was the second post-colonial state after Vermont to be incorporated. The Creek Confederacy prevented significant settlement of inland Mississippi and Alabama until after Louisiana became a state. Mississippi and Alabama used to be the same territory, were arbitrarily split, and could be just as arbitrarily merged today. The only difference I've noticed is that Alabamans have a thicker, higher-pitched Southern accent.

West Virginia was split off of Virginia during the Civil War and joined the North. I don't think there are any other wartime states though. Unless you count Puerto Rico, but they're still in limbo ATM.

 

[Archbob]

If we are going to do away with it, how about doing away with the federation as opposed to the states? Sure, we can still have an Articles of Confederation for a few things like maintaining navy, establishing tariffs, and interstate transportation projects, but on everything else let the states take care of it. It could have some benefits, such as less polarized politics and less militaristic foreign policy.

We tried the articles once, guess how that turned out.

 

[hangman]

We tried the articles once, guess how that turned out.

At the same time, that was 200+ years ago. I wonder if something like the EU would work?

 

[timtofly]

For those of you who think that states are unnecessary, would you also accept the point that so are personal opinions? Having cities and states allow citizens to relate to each other on a personal level while not loosing sight of one's relationship with the rest of the world.

 

[Smellincoffee]

To concentrate power and inflict it on others.

 

[Snorrius]

I think we are in need of immediate constitutional reform, with the hope of totally abolishing the States as well as the Senate.

It is not really my business but I would not recommend a reckless thing like this.

 

[Harv]

It is not really my business but I would not recommend a reckless thing like this.

Seconded. I have not decided yet on the "not really my business part."

 

[bhsup]

I would sooner have the USA abolished and replaced by 50 republics ( suck it, D.C., you're going back to Maryland ) than have the States abolished. Not kidding. Thankfully, neither will happen, so that's moot.

 

[Natan35]

The current system in the U.S. isn't democratic at all: 'cause in Alabama, more people support party #1, everyone who supports party #2 doesn't exist. What is this?! Nonsense.
(In such... poor English.... )

 

[hangman]

The current system in the U.S. isn't democratic at all: 'cause in Alabama, more people support party #1, everyone who supports party #2 doesn't exist. What is this?! Nonsense.
(In such... poor English.... )

Yeah, the electoral college needs to die. Everyone hates it. Except Republicans when they win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote

(Actually, the grammar is pretty good! The second comma should be a semicolon but that's the only error I see.)

 

[Antilogic]

That's not as bad as more people supporting and voting for party #1, but party #2 walks away with the lion's share of seats because of gerrymandering.

 

[hangman]

Basically we just need to start fresh.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I would sooner have the USA abolished and replaced by 50 republics ( suck it, D.C., you're going back to Maryland ) than have the States abolished. Not kidding. Thankfully, neither will happen, so that's moot.

Aren't they almost abolished, functionally? We might as well be French departments for all the sovereignty still possessed by the state governments these days.

 

[hangman]

Aren't they almost abolished, functionally? We might as well be French departments for all the sovereignty still possessed by the state governments these days.

To a certain extent. State governments typically deal with the more mundane stuff, so you don't usually hear about them. Once in a while they get the latitude to pass something like marijuana decriminalization or gay marriage, but it's usually stuff like, "should we allow liquor stores to be open on Sunday morning?"

 

[Tahuti]

That's not as bad as more people supporting and voting for party #1, but party #2 walks away with the lion's share of seats because of gerrymandering.

The effects of gerrymandering are probably significantly overstated: People who tend to vote Republican and people who tend to vote Democratic are different subcultures with different social mores. That's why neither side truly cares to compromise since compromise is defeat.

The best option would probably for the United States to split up in a Liberal part (which will end up being an alliance of city states I wager) and a Republican part. That way, the US is ideally set up for a British reconquest!

 

[hangman]

The effects of gerrymandering are probably significantly overstated: People who tend to vote Republican and people who tend to vote Democratic are different subcultures with different social mores. That's why neither side truly cares to compromise since compromise is defeat.

I mean, it's not the sole source of our democracy issues, but it's one of the biggest factors. I think the other part is our two-party system. The Dems/Reps have entrenched the two-party system to the point where major electoral reforms are nearly impossible at any level higher than local government.

But yes, there are distinct liberal/conservative differences. White people probably see it the most, since most minorities skew heavily liberal. I'd say white people are split 60:40 conservative, and I think there's a trend towards political segregation. You can see maps of cities where the inner part votes heavily Dem, and there's a ring of suburbs that's heavily Rep, and the countryside is not quite as strongly Rep.

The best option would probably for the United States to split up in a Liberal part (which will end up being an alliance of city states I wager) and a Republican part. That way, the US is ideally set up for a British reconquest!.

Yeah, I think many people here are beginning to think we're headed to a "divorce" of sorts. Which I'm mostly for, but it would leave my homeland (Acadiana) on the crappy side ...unless Cajuns get nationalistic, but that's not likely and it probably wouldn't end well.

 

[Antilogic]

The effects of gerrymandering are probably significantly overstated: People who tend to vote Republican and people who tend to vote Democratic are different subcultures with different social mores. That's why neither side truly cares to compromise since compromise is defeat.

It's not overstated. Gerrymandering both affects the candidates for the office (safe seats, low-turnout and sometimes closed primaries give a strong voice to party faithful) as well as control of the House (Sam Wang did a very good analysis of gerrymandering following the 2012 election, showed that the GOP has an extra 20-30 seats and control of the House largely due to gerrymandering in PA, OH, MI, NC, and VA amongst other lesser offenders like FL, IN; the Dems recover a bit from IL and some court-ordered redistricting in AZ, TX but otherwise are disadvantaged).