If the U.S. had a parliamentary system

[Hyggemata]

Well that is fair enough, in my opinion. Canada is too a federal country, yet it does not suffer from the disunity in the USA. Perhaps some lessons could be had.

What would you call Quebec?

Quebec hasn't refused to recognize homosexual marriage or ordered a state of emergency due to transgendered bathrooms.

[Kravanica]

What would you call Quebec?

Quebec hasn't refused to recognize homosexual marriage or ordered a state of emergency due to transgendered bathrooms.

No state has ordered a state of emergency due to transgender bathrooms, though. Also, hasn't Quebec wanted to secede?

[Hyggemata]

Quebec hasn't refused to recognize homosexual marriage or ordered a state of emergency due to transgendered bathrooms.

No state has ordered a state of emergency due to transgender bathrooms, though. Also, hasn't Quebec wanted to secede?

Hasn't Oklahoma done that?

And yes, Quebec has, twice in fact, in 1980 and 1995. Both were defeated by a majority who did not want to secede.

[Major-Tom]

We've had a presidential system for too long, it really can't be changed without overhauling our entire system of government.

So, whats my recommendation? I say we amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college and have a two round run off system for the presidential elections, like in France or Austria.

[Kravanica]

No state has ordered a state of emergency due to transgender bathrooms, though. Also, hasn't Quebec wanted to secede?

Hasn't Oklahoma done that?

And yes, Quebec has, twice in fact, in 1980 and 1995. Both were defeated by a majority who did not want to secede.

No.

Also, we've never had votes here to secede.

[Hyggemata]

Hasn't Oklahoma done that?

And yes, Quebec has, twice in fact, in 1980 and 1995. Both were defeated by a majority who did not want to secede.

No.

Also, we've never had votes here to secede.

Perhaps not, but you did secede anyway and endure a civil war for that.

[Kravanica]

No.

Also, we've never had votes here to secede.

Perhaps not, but you did secede anyway and endure a civil war for that.

Yeah, but we held the country together and became more unified as a result.

No one says "the United States are" anymore.

[Noraika]

Abolition of states should definitely be something the United States does. In fact, the States need to rework their entire constitution, to a more centralized form.

[Hyggemata]

Perhaps not, but you did secede anyway and endure a civil war for that.

Yeah, but we held the country together and became more unified as a result.

No one says "the United States are" anymore.

No war beats war, IMO.

[Noraika]

Yeah, but we held the country together and became more unified as a result.

No one says "the United States are" anymore.

No war beats war, IMO.

Oh and Oklahoma did declare a variety of a state of emergency so that they could pass immediate legislation without having to wait for an addition session, in order to restrict the ability of transgender people from using the bathrooms and facilities befitting their gender, which they'd been doing without incident for decades, but...they didn't really care about looking at the facts from what I could tell.

[Hyggemata]

No war beats war, IMO.

Oh and Oklahoma did declare a variety of a state of emergency so that they could pass immediate legislation without having to wait for an addition session, in order to restrict the ability of transgender people from using the bathrooms and facilities befitting their gender, which they'd been doing without incident for decades, but...they didn't really care about looking at the facts from what I could tell.

Yeah, that's one of the worst abuses of state power. I am quite certain that they did it out of spite against the federal government for enacting a policy that is locally unpopular.

[Novus America]

Abolition of states should definitely be something the United States does. In fact, the States need to rework their entire constitution, to a more centralized form.

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

[Hyggemata]

Abolition of states should definitely be something the United States does. In fact, the States need to rework their entire constitution, to a more centralized form.

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

And you don't need states, as they currently exist, to allow for regional diversity. To suggest that what works in rural Texas is what works in San Francisco is absurd prima facie, but not so much when you think about it. Both places are inhabited by homo sapiens, who are all 99.9% alike genetically, have the same language, eat largely the same food, and have the same basic requirements in life, such as air, water, education, safety, and so on.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

Countries have changed their names before. I haven't seen many complaints when you changed yours from "United States in Congress Assembled."

[Noraika]

Abolition of states should definitely be something the United States does. In fact, the States need to rework their entire constitution, to a more centralized form.

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

Yes it would, and that would work better than the current system. Representation can be distributed more evenly by putting in proportional representation, but the US is already one of the most devolved countries in the developed world. In order to fulfill the functions of the states, we need a larger, more representative parliament, and we need to eliminate the federal aspect. That does not mean we cannot have provinces or other local administrative governments. But overall, you need centralization to have the resources necessary to fulfill state functions adequately, and to ensure proper functioning of government.

The US could use a new name, and flag...neither are very good in my opinion, to be honest, so I wouldn't mind whatsoever if they did change it. Also the US does need to become something entirely different. Its structure and lack of central authority leave it prone to major political dysfunction, as we've seen again and again.

[The One True Benxboro Empire]

Abolition of states should definitely be something the United States does. In fact, the States need to rework their entire constitution, to a more centralized form.

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

Unitary states, in my experience, tend towards being the foundation for a more ethnic kind of nationalism. But I'm probably wrong.

[Novus America]

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

And you don't need states, as they currently exist, to allow for regional diversity. To suggest that what works in rural Texas is what works in San Francisco is absurd prima facie, but not so much when you think about it. Both places are inhabited by homo sapiens, who are all 99.9% alike genetically, have the same language, eat largely the same food, and have the same basic requirements in life, such as air, water, education, safety, and so on.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

Countries have changed their names before. I haven't seen many complaints when you changed yours from "United States in Congress Assembled."

And what is wrong with the states, as they currently exist?
Sure you could have different borders for some. But on the whole why?

Also culture and other things are very different. Many things are subjective. Furthermore the cost of housing somone, the type of structures needed, the cost of food and the type of food wanted are completely different.

And that is not merely changing the name. It would be changing the US into something completely different.
And would cause another civil war.

[Novus America]

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

Yes it would, and that would work better than the current system. Representation can be distributed more evenly by putting in proportional representation, but the US is already one of the most devolved countries in the developed world. In order to fulfill the functions of the states, we need a larger, more representative parliament, and we need to eliminate the federal aspect. That does not mean we cannot have provinces or other local administrative governments. But overall, you need centralization to have the resources necessary to fulfill state functions adequately, and to ensure proper functioning of government.

The US could use a new name, and flag...neither are very good in my opinion, to be honest, so I wouldn't mind whatsoever if they did change it. Also the US does need to become something entirely different. Its structure and lack of central authority leave it prone to major political dysfunction, as we've seen again and again.

It would be completely different is the states are a fundamental part of the US.

And then the local governments have no protections against overreach by the central government.
Plus the tax and spend power means the federal government can already collect and distribute what it needs to.

And the issue we have are not with the structure of the states. The disfuntion is largely a matter of parliamentary procedure, stupid congressional rules that simply need a majority vote in each house to change.

The problem for the most part is not with the states at all.

[Noraika]

And you don't need states, as they currently exist, to allow for regional diversity. To suggest that what works in rural Texas is what works in San Francisco is absurd prima facie, but not so much when you think about it. Both places are inhabited by homo sapiens, who are all 99.9% alike genetically, have the same language, eat largely the same food, and have the same basic requirements in life, such as air, water, education, safety, and so on.
Countries have changed their names before. I haven't seen many complaints when you changed yours from "United States in Congress Assembled."

And what is wrong with the states, as they currently exist?
Sure you could have different borders for some. But on the whole why?

Also culture and other things are very different. Many things are subjective. Furthermore the cost of housing somone, the type of structures needed, the cost of food and the type of food wanted are completely different.

And that is not merely changing the name. It would be changing the US into something completely different.
And would cause another civil war.

Because the loose federation style of the US is not only commpletely unnecessary as it currently stands (in that it no longer takes days to get a message from state to state), and use of proportional representation, and an increase in the size of parliament, can account for the diversity within the states. Plus the states and local governments have repeatedly shown they lack the means to do their jobs. What I mean is that they overall just do not have access to the resources needed to fulfill their obligations in many areas. Even if they do the best job they can they repeatedly do not have enough resources to do what is needed.

They've literally just become additional, and relatively pointless, bureaucracies, in my opinion. Plus the thousands of local codes can't be anything but a nightmare for business. We need standardization, we need centralization of resources so they can actually be applied to meet goals successfully, we need to slim down the number of competing and pointless bureaucracies. Plus the states have constantly been a cause of chaos within the government and have been more trouble than they're worth (ie. the recent issues of Marriage Equality and Transgender Rights, which could be over and done by now had it not been for the states).

Overall, to summarize, the structure of the United States is extremely outdated, flawed, and has not aged well at all, and now needs to catch up with the times.

[Novus America]

Hell no. One sized fits all dictates from D.C. are not what we need. The US is big and diverse, and your vote counts more in smaller elections. We need more decentralization. We have way to much centralization anyways. And it is causing discontent. What works in rural Texas is not the same as in San Francisco.

Also then the United States would literally cease to exist. It would be something else entirely.

Unitary states, in my experience, tend towards being the foundation for a more ethnic kind of nationalism. But I'm probably wrong.

Well yes, a unitary state cannot be as diverse usually. And also tend to be much smaller.

The US is simply to big and diverse to be a unitary state.

China is technically a unitary state on paper but is not a democracy and de facto it works as a federation, and the central government has limited control over and even knowledge of what the sub entities are doing. Chinese economic statistics for example are calculated by local governments, the central government just adds them together and nobody knows how much is really true.

Large unititary states inevitably run into serious problems with administration.

[Novus America]

And what is wrong with the states, as they currently exist?
Sure you could have different borders for some. But on the whole why?

Also culture and other things are very different. Many things are subjective. Furthermore the cost of housing somone, the type of structures needed, the cost of food and the type of food wanted are completely different.

And that is not merely changing the name. It would be changing the US into something completely different.
And would cause another civil war.

Because the loose federation style of the US is not only commpletely unnecessary as it currently stands (in that it no longer takes days to get a message from state to state), and use of proportional representation, and an increase in the size of parliament, can account for the diversity within the states. Plus the states and local governments have repeatedly shown they lack the means to do their jobs. What I mean is that they overall just do not have access to the resources needed to fulfill their obligations in many areas. Even if they do the best job they can they repeatedly do not have enough resources to do what is needed.

They've literally just become additional, and relatively pointless, bureaucracies, in my opinion. Plus the thousands of local codes can't be anything but a nightmare for business. We need standardization, we need centralization of resources so they can actually be applied to meet goals successfully, we need to slim down the number of competing and pointless bureaucracies. Plus the states have constantly been a cause of chaos within the government and have been more trouble than they're worth (ie. the recent issues of Marriage Equality and Transgender Rights, which could be over and done by now had it not been for the states).

Overall, to summarize, the structure of the United States is extremely outdated, flawed, and has not aged well at all, and now needs to catch up with the times.

Having more centralization is different than abolishing the states entirely, also as far as "catching up with the times" the current global trend is in the way of greater decentralization!

The US is not the only federation with states you know.

Also one size fits all laws do not work in many cases. Local conditions require different things.
And the states have no shortage of money, and for the most part do okay.

The US is overall the by far most successful country of any of comparable population.
It is too big to work as a unitary state well. You are going to have to have extra lawyers anyways as it is simply to big.

In fact the US being much larger and diverse than it used to be makes decentralization MORE needed. Not less.

[Noraika]

Because the loose federation style of the US is not only commpletely unnecessary as it currently stands (in that it no longer takes days to get a message from state to state), and use of proportional representation, and an increase in the size of parliament, can account for the diversity within the states. Plus the states and local governments have repeatedly shown they lack the means to do their jobs. What I mean is that they overall just do not have access to the resources needed to fulfill their obligations in many areas. Even if they do the best job they can they repeatedly do not have enough resources to do what is needed.

They've literally just become additional, and relatively pointless, bureaucracies, in my opinion. Plus the thousands of local codes can't be anything but a nightmare for business. We need standardization, we need centralization of resources so they can actually be applied to meet goals successfully, we need to slim down the number of competing and pointless bureaucracies. Plus the states have constantly been a cause of chaos within the government and have been more trouble than they're worth (ie. the recent issues of Marriage Equality and Transgender Rights, which could be over and done by now had it not been for the states).

Overall, to summarize, the structure of the United States is extremely outdated, flawed, and has not aged well at all, and now needs to catch up with the times.

Having more centralization is different than abolishing the states entirely, also as far as "catching up with the times" the current global trend is in the way of greater decentralization!

The US is not the only federation with states you know.

Also one size fits all laws do not work in many cases. Local conditions require different things.
And the states have no shortage of money, and for the most part do okay.

The US is overall the by far most successful country of any of comparable population.
It is too big to work as a unitary state well. You are going to have to have extra lawyers anyways as it is simply to big.

In fact the US being much larger and diverse than it used to be makes decentralization MORE needed. Not less.

Local administrations can account for the necessary adjustments, but a central authority can attest to most necessary conditions.

Nope. Try again. The US struggles in education, infrastructure, transportation, healthcare, and general quality of life, and a lot of it comes from lack of ability to gather enough resources. The US has no shortage of money, but it splits it so much, and so unequally, that it is unable to meet its needs effectively.

A standard of living comparable with Bulgaria (when adjusted to inequality), 24% of children growing up in poverty, extensive amounts of child poverty, and only barely and falling level of democracy, is not a success. The US is a disaster zone blind to its own rather shitty qualities in comparison to other countries. You want to see success? You won't see it in the US in comparison to other countries as far as the livelihood of the people is concerned.

The US can easily function as a unitary state. You inflate its diversity. It is very culturally united even despite its one major division, which is not uncommon in unitary states. It is not too big, because once again technology has rendered the states pretty much useless and pointless, and their extra bureaucracies need to be lifted from the burden of law and people.

[Hyggemata]

And you don't need states, as they currently exist, to allow for regional diversity. To suggest that what works in rural Texas is what works in San Francisco is absurd prima facie, but not so much when you think about it. Both places are inhabited by homo sapiens, who are all 99.9% alike genetically, have the same language, eat largely the same food, and have the same basic requirements in life, such as air, water, education, safety, and so on.
Countries have changed their names before. I haven't seen many complaints when you changed yours from "United States in Congress Assembled."

And what is wrong with the states, as they currently exist?

They are clearly impeding the progress of the nation as a whole, not even for the benefit of their own citizens. State legislators crave federal subvention but reject federal advice on how to spend them, even if the federal government is objectively better informed and equipped to carry out certain tasks.

Sure you could have different borders for some. But on the whole why?

As previously said.

Also culture and other things are very different. Many things are subjective. Furthermore the cost of housing somone, the type of structures needed, the cost of food and the type of food wanted are completely different.

The federal government is obviously able to see that. Just because it is different does not mean it needs to be done by different authorities. A single building company can hire many architects to design different buildings for different terrain and climate.

And that is not merely changing the name. It would be changing the US into something completely different.
And would cause another civil war.

There are no grounds for that suspicion.

[Noraika]

If anything, the federal government has had to constantly prop up the states to keep them from failing and falling in on themselves. And what do the states do in return, cause chaos by rebelling against federal authority constantly (like the rules requiring transgender people to be allowed to access facilities befitting their gender, and marriage equality, and social and economic issues in general). They're like spoiled children tbh, and not even ones that fulfill a useful purpose.

[Novus America]

Having more centralization is different than abolishing the states entirely, also as far as "catching up with the times" the current global trend is in the way of greater decentralization!

The US is not the only federation with states you know.

Also one size fits all laws do not work in many cases. Local conditions require different things.
And the states have no shortage of money, and for the most part do okay.

The US is overall the by far most successful country of any of comparable population.
It is too big to work as a unitary state well. You are going to have to have extra lawyers anyways as it is simply to big.

In fact the US being much larger and diverse than it used to be makes decentralization MORE needed. Not less.

Local administrations can account for the necessary adjustments, but a central authority can attest to most necessary conditions.

Nope. Try again. The US struggles in education, infrastructure, transportation, healthcare, and general quality of life, and a lot of it comes from lack of ability to gather enough resources. The US has no shortage of money, but it splits it so much, and so unequally, that it is unable to meet its needs effectively.

A standard of living comparable with Bulgaria (when adjusted to inequality), 24% of children growing up in poverty, extensive amounts of child poverty, and only barely and falling level of democracy, is not a success. The US is a disaster zone blind to its own rather shitty qualities in comparison to other countries. You want to see success? You won't see it in the US in comparison to other countries as far as the livelihood of the people is concerned.

The US can easily function as a unitary state. You inflate its diversity. It is very culturally united even despite its one major division, which is not uncommon in unitary states. It is not too big, because once again technology has rendered the states pretty much useless and pointless, and their extra bureaucracies need to be lifted from the burden of law and people.

Name another country of SIMILAR population size that does better. Say 100 million plus. And the larger, most successful ones like Germany are FEDERATIONS. And the US is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, but none the less the problem is not a federal structure.

We do need to make reforms to do things better, but this can be done within a federal structure. Canada, Switzerland and Germany all do fine with a federal structure.

The problems have nothing to do with being a federation.

If you car needs a oil change, tearing off the doors would not fix it.

Nearly all our problems could be fixed with simple legislation within the current constitution.

[Hyggemata]

Name another country of SIMILAR population size that does better. Say 100 million plus. And the larger, most successful ones like Germany are FEDERATIONS. And the US is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be, but none the less the problem is not a federal structure.

China. Has been unitary for most of the past 2,000 years, whose economy has grown at a rate surpassing 10% for the past two decades. You don't need the state capitalism and dictatorship elements, but it proves that unitary states can also perform well.

We do need to make reforms to do things better, but this can be done within a federal structure. Canada, Switzerland and Germany all do fine with a federal structure.

Canada's federal structure is founded upon a parliamentary system of government on both the provincial and federal levels. And somehow Canada's federal structure does not engender nearly as much animus between disgruntled state legislators and the federal government.