In the absence of the states, cities and towns would still have mayors, city/town councils, school boards, zoning boards, etc. Counties, and county government, would presumablly also still exist. The schools would still be run by, and potholes would still be under the auspicies of, local government.
If the states were eliminated, some of what they do would move to the federal level; some to the local and county level.
We could, if we wished, continue to have a senate and house. The 50 senators could each represent 50 equally-sized groups of people, and the 435 congresspeople could each represent 435 equally-sized groups of people. These groupings would not have to be geographically based. It would be fun to work out how people will be divided up into 50 equal groups and 425 equal groups…
Here’s the deal on this, as I understand it. Most states entered the union as territories. Then at some future point, their local legislature and the Federal Congress passed acts giving the territory statehood. So granting statehood was generally a legislative action.
Texas, on the other hand, was a sovereign nation when it joined the United States. So a group of Texan and American diplomats got together to work out a treaty to enable Texas to be admitted as state into the US. This treaty supposedly included the clause about Texas having the right to divide into five states.
However, while the treaty was being negotiated, the Texas legislature and United States Congress jumped the gun and passed acts admitting Texas as a state. These acts did not contain the division right. And because these acts rendered the purpose of the treaty moot, it was never formally approved.
Your first sentence is true, but about counties, I don’t think there would be any point for counties because counties are supposed to be subdivisions of states and make up representations for constituents for state senators and legislatures. That is a county’s main purpose. Without states, counties are meaningless.
Then these sections, at least partially, would be states because the main purpose of a state is to have a certain rigid area to represent people so there is no gerrymandering all over the U.S., no mass corruption in congress, at least in this area of government (we know corruption goes on everywhere else). Your system would allow for fluid borders, which in turn would allow for national gerrymandering. There is gerrymandering within states between national senators and and representatives, but it’s confined to a certain area. Without states, congressman could take a section from Seattle to Los Angeles to Salt Lake City to Minneapolis-St. Paul just to unfairly receive the maximum number of constituents in an area that would probably change at the next census when the congressman realizes he no longer has the maximum number of a certain constituential group.
Government would work worse and worse all the time. Imagine if you voted for a person you really liked around census time, then their area changes on you and you have a different person than who you voted for. I know that sure would tick me off.
Okay, how about if there were fewer states. Lump all of New England, for example, into the new state of New England. Join the Carolinas and the Dakotas, merge Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia into a Mid-Atlantic state, etc.
Say there were just 15 states, would things be better?
Fewer states wouldn’t make a difference in our system of government, it would just up the limit of people legislatures would represent and dilute the senate. I don’t think it could hurt, however there comes a point where there are too few states and would be no different than a stateless government. I’d say that 15 is pushing the limit, but there’s no point in it either, or was that just an interesting anecdote?
If we’re going to redesign the system, why not choose a basis other then geography? I don’t know what the voting age pop of the US totals, but take that number and divide it by 100. Each of the 100 Senators represents that number of people. Divide the voting age pop by 435 to get the number of people each Congressperson represents. Or divide by 535, and have just one house, and call the people in it Representatives.
One system would be to say that any group of X number of people can elect a Rep. Each voter can vote for one Rep only. Someone who wants to be a Rep tries to get X number of people to sign on with him or her. If he can’t get enough, he may urge his people to support someone else who has similar priorities.
Another system would be to divide people into constituencies, such as college students, teachers, small business owners, people in show biz, the unemployed, min wage workers, medical workers, farmers, whatever. Each group elects some number of Reps, however many their numbers in the population calls for.
I’d say that none of this is any more unlikely then eliminating the states.
It should be noted that in the US, local governments get their right to exist and levy taxes from the state. So if the states go away, so do all the cities and counties.
As far as splitting up an existing state, that’s legal under the constitution:
Not necessarily. Counties might not exist because they divide the state for the same reasons states divide the country, so if states were eliminated counties would cease to be useful. Cities on the other hand could still exist and levy taxes, but under the jurisdiction of the feds. Yet again they would have control of something they shouldn’t have and wouldn’t be able to handle it.
I say the more states the better. It counteracts the self serving nature of congress.
Taking Northern Piper’s point and applying it to the states: would the states be better governed and administrated if the counties were done away with? The only time this theory has been put to a test is in the case of cities and counties combining, such as Indianapolis and Jacksonville, FL. That probably only works when the city has grown to the point that it is the county.
I saw NP’s post and the idea came to mind. After posting I saw what TGZ posted and then others. I should have read all posts first, but it is getting late.
I was making a legalistic point. Cities and counties are authorized to exist by the state. There are specific laws that allow them to collect taxes and perform other functions. Also laws that require them to perform certain functions such as enforce laws (i.e. have police departments).
If the states disappear, those laws are no longer in effect and the cities and counties disappear too. The federal government might create new cities and counties in their places, but they will not be the same, even if they have the exact same boundaries as the old ones do.
And this is different from the self-serving nature of the state legislatures in what way?
How does government work in other countries that have states, or provinces, or whatever they call their administrative regions? Is the US unique in having a division between state and national government?
No. Canada’s and Australia’s provinces serve the save purpose as states, that is the power is divided evenly. There are states in Mexico and Russia, but I think the power is heavily on the fed’s side.
