New Draft (2.2)
[The Issue] A debate in the proper influence and power of local governments has been thrust into the spotlight after @@CAPITAL@@ unilaterally decided that it was not required to follow one of your flagship laws. You invited various interests for a conference regarding the matter.
[validity]Only valid for nations that have local governments
[The Debate]
1. "Thank you for meeting with me, @@LEADER@@," begins @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. "You see, we really had no intention of undermining your authority, but we in @@CAPITAL@@ believe that the national government has become too powerful, and we wanted to bring that to your attention. If we decentralize the government, it prevents you, or anyone else for that matter, from becoming a dictator."
FALLOUT: the national government cannot pass any law without unanimous concurrence from every local government
2. "That's completely ridiculous!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of Parliament. "We all know all that federalism does is create more bureaucracy and more crime. If you take the mayor's proposal, he will undermine every law that's built our great @@TYPE@@ into what it is. We can't have that. It's time to eliminate these local governments!" @@HE@@ leans towards you and whispers, "plus, it gives us more power."
FALLOUT: local parks cannot mow their grass without the national government's permission
3. "I don't see why we have to take either extreme," says your Minister of Compromise, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ stalemates @@HIS@@ intern in chess. "Why not have an independent commission set a clear guideline of whether the local or the national government gets to decide an issue. Of course, you'll have to raise taxes to fund the commission, and it will create more bureaucracy, but isn't it worth it to settle this debate fairly?"
FALLOUT: more time is spent on settling who gets to decide an issue than is spent actually handling issues
Thoughts?