Would it be better to reform the US and abolish the wasteful 'states' system? There does not seem to be any coherence or consistency between the numerous 'states'. Each of the states has its own laws and infrastructures which are largely duplicated in all of the other states, an extremely wasteful process which only adds to taxpayers' burdens.
Should we abolish the individual states and just have a handful of 'provinces' (by whatever name) as they do in Canada and Australia. Both Canada and Australia are larger than the US and they do not seem to have any problems with the province system.
2007-12-01 13:21:21 · 9 answers · asked by celtish 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
[supplementary] It does not follow that by abolishing the states all power would go to Washington. The new provinces would wield just as much 'local power' as do the present states.
2007-12-01 13:33:35 · update #1
definately no. The reason we have a state system is becasue every state has it's own unique problems. Are you saying we should do like the commies and start central planning??? The state system faster adapts to problems then say a national system would. Simply because it's smaller.
2007-12-01 13:25:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Think states should have more power to engage into treaties with foriegn countries, and have immigration enforced at the state level because Texas interests may be the opposite of Massacuettues or Michigan.
Taxation of social services should be done at the local level, and decentralization of role of state goverment should follow similar to Canada.
Canadian provinces have more power than local states. Still, even in Canada Alberta is paying more at Federal then they get back with income transfers to maritime provinces. Like New York giving money to Mississippi no different. Consitution is built for the 19th century with some of the rules in place, and if the southeast was excluded as part of the Untied States. The Untied States would be similar to Canada or Australia politcally.
2007-12-01 13:38:32 · answer #2 · answered by ram456456 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although I love the avatar you lifted from the Sillyarts website, I vehemently disagree.
The states are laboratories of democracy themselves. If taxes are too high in one state, people and companies are free to move to another.
Devolving government decisions to the most local level is a good thing - citizens have a much greater opportunity to influence the decisions their elected officials make.
Think of how hard it is to get an ear from the Federal level. Now imagine if we abolish our Federal government and cede our sovereignty to the United Nations - how likely would it be that you'd have a say then?
2007-12-01 13:30:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.
Those that are in favor of a large central government would be for your proposal, but I would rather have as much of the power in the hands of small local governments rather than give power to the federal government.
You can argue the success of Canada and Australia and the provincial system.
In what way is Australia bigger than the US? Both population and land mass is smaller than the US.
2007-12-01 13:28:30 · answer #4 · answered by Still Learning 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. Australia is not larger than the U.S.
2. The different states have extremely different views. If you talkedto one person from Texas, and another from San Fransisco, they would be completely different politically. It is important that each state can have its own system so that the laws reflect on what more people in that state want.
2007-12-01 13:27:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow, the states have been around since before the US even existed. Trying to get rid of them would be like trying to get the US to switch the metric system, it isn't going to happen. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the current system. Each state is unique and when the founders created the Constitution they made sure that the states would keep that individuality.
2007-12-01 13:26:09 · answer #6 · answered by xzorion54 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
heck, all of our (Canada's) province's have different laws. In BC you have to be 16 to get your learners, but in Alberta you only have to be 14. Drinking age is different, and ya. Province's is just another way of saying STATE.
2007-12-01 14:52:29 · answer #7 · answered by Aurum 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would mean all whole parcel of paper work that'd you'd never believe; oh I dread those poor stenographers and their poor fingers. Stacks of CDs to be edited.....not to mention a rising rebellion...are you glad you are not an American President?
2007-12-01 18:50:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Reform it back to the Fifties.
2007-12-01 13:24:37 · answer #9 · answered by BAKER 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋