US - Whither States?

Great Debates
1

This subject has been percolating in my noggin for quite some time and I would be interested in a broad discussion here in the SDMB. It is inspired by a lot of different discussions that seem to boil down, for me, to the final question - Whither States? The discussion likely encompasses history, politics, geography, economics, law, and whatever else might be appropriate.

I use the definition of “whither” from Mirriam-Webster : to what situation, position, degree, or end

Or more simply, “Why States?”

For me, an example would be the discussion of the Electoral College in the US. The notion that the voters don’t actually elect the President. Instead, the Electoral College does. And that the number of Electors is equal to the number of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators (2 per State). So, each State is given an equal say by the number of Senators. To which I say, but why? What is a State that deems Rhode Island equal to Alaska, or Delaware equal to California? We’ve had this particular discussion to great length in the past.

So, in the US, what makes a State a State?

It seems to me that the shapes and sizes are mostly accidents of history and geography. I also have a pet theory that they somewhat reflect meaningful advances in transportation and communication available at the time of their creations. Horseback/coach vs Navigable waters vs Train travel & telegraph.

It also seems to me that the original formation of the States as carry-over from the colonies was meaningful at the time, but would be a worthwhile subject to revisit. They were sorta kinda like individual countries, banding together. I am fully aware that there was intense debate at the time as to what the banding together should look like and where the power lines should be drawn. And one could argue that the discussions are still reflected in our current politics.

But maybe 200+ years ago, discussing banding together of essentially individual countries into a confederation, would go very differently today with our current understanding of what a State means and how they actually operate.

I will confess that the thought experiment I lean to is: What if, instead of quasi-independent States, we had Federally Administered Regions and Districts? More like current Counties within our current States. More of a top-down system. I can see elimination of the patchwork quilt of gun laws, abortion laws, election administration, education systems, weird banking & insurance markets, pot laws, etc. Any number of fraught issues that reflect States battling the Federal Government could be eliminated by having central administration.

And while we’re at it, we could equalize up the size/shape/population differences.

I would also welcome input from non-US Dopers on how it works in their parts of the world, as comparison (particularly European countries internally, and within the EU).

I know we have touched on this discussion in other threads, regarding the preference for State control rather than Federal control. That always brings me to my statement: “You are accepting that a governing body should be the deciding cohort, we are agreeing on that. But why draw the hard line at The State?”

So, from that disjointed ramble, thoughts? If we were creating a USA in 2021, would we end up with the State structure that we have?

2

Fundamentally it grows out of the original 13 colonies granting SOME of their power to the newly created Federal government, not the other way around. And as the country grew, new states were added under the same rules as the others as defined in the Constitution, which essentially constrains the scope of the Federal government in relation to the states. And in practice what this means is that there are a LOT of powers that have always been retained by the states and never granted to the Federal government.

Why did this come about? Most likely because at the time that the Constitution was signed, the 13 original states considered themselves sufficiently independent and different from one another such that they wanted to retain the lion’s share of legislative power, and only delegate some to the Federal government, under the thinking that decentralized and localized was the way to go on things that weren’t explicitly Federal in scope.

By comparison, nearly all European nations evolved out of more or less unitary states that are either still that way, even with a parliamentary government, or they have devolved some power to the sub-units (see Scotland & the UK). Only a few states (Germany)

I still think it’s a good idea. There is no such thing as “One size fits all”, in clothing or legislation. And what might be right for a state like Vermont may be entirely wrong for Wyoming. And if they could strike a compromise between those two, it might be detrimental or onerous to say… New Mexico. So better to let each of those states do things like choose their speed limits, or how to regulate their cosmetologists, or whatever.

I think if we were going to re-do it today, we’d do well to maybe define some things more explicitly in the Constitution, such as electoral college reform or elimination, more explicit restrictions/rules on the voting process (i.e. gerrymandering) and so on.

But I think the semi-sovereign states are still a good idea; there’s no reason Washington should be involved in setting the speed limit on Texas Highway 21 between Old Dime Box and Bastrop. Nor should it be involved in any number of other things that are basically too small and too local for the Federal government to deal with/

3

You’ll never get the majority to agree to your FARD system, I’m afraid. Too many people Identify strongly with their individual state, and too many people distrust the federal government so strongly that they’d never agree to a top-down system. Giving up more local control to the federal government would never fly.

Can’t agree with you here. That confederation business didn’t go well the first two times it was tried, and it wouldn’t go well now. I don’t think there’s been any significant change in our understanding of states or their fundamental nature. Confederations normally don’t have strong central governments and often don’t have an executive office at all–kind of the opposite of what you’re proposing.

If we were re-creating the USA in 2021 (Hard to imagine creating it now.), odds are the individual units would be smaller in some cases: Eastern and Western Washington, Chicago and Illinois, West and East Montana, etc.

I do like your ideas. I just don’t see how you could convince diehard states’ rights supporters.

4

Canada is in many ways similar, but whereas the US Constitution sends the remainder of the power to the States, Canada is the other way around. Anything not specifically enumerated powers - healthcare delivery (distinct from funding!), education, etc - is controlled by the federal government. That’s why we have 1 Criminal Code but a dozen securities regulators.

5

Well, I don’t imagine trying to propose making changes or convincing anyone. It’s more of a pie-in-the-sky-out-out-of-the-box what if-ing.

Although, I could imagine a scenario where, in our current strongly partisan environment, some states would cede power to a central authority, as long as it was the “right one”.

I would also be interested to game out how one would try to sell the idea, who would line up where. Of course we would expect strong resistance from existing State government individuals and power structures to seeing diminished power. But, particularly in regard to the corporate money interests, it might go the other way. In my imaginings, the big money folks really don’t care much about loyalty to Virginia, or Idaho. Those distinctions and borders are fairly moot. Yes, of course, there are advantages in incorporating in one state over the next for legal and tax purposes, but it’s really all on paper, yah? So, if one were to propose a complete overhaul, would they pour money into campaigning against it? Or, if the new Federal structure were closer to a best-case corporate state environment (Delaware?), would the money interests all get on board and campaign for it, in order to eliminate what they see as onerous cross-state business costs? Another avenue to explore…

6

I like your pie-n-the-sky-out-of the-box idea. (Just add water!) And you’ve given me a lot to think about. Thanks!

7

The “United States” are a collection of territories that are definitionally not states. When the original 13 ratified the constitution, they agreed to give up their own sovereignty, possibly without realizing to what extent they were doing so.

Even ignoring subsequent amendments, the original constitution established:
-That the federal government has a monopoly on violence
-That the federal government controls currency among the states
-That states were effectively banned from conducting diplomacy independent of the federal government and were also restricted from doing things like restricting freedom of movement or rights of people from other states
-That disputes between the states and federal government are adjudicated in federal courts.

The only real powers the states maintained with the constitution were that senate/electoral college representation that gave them some power versus a straight popular federal government, and that it took a supermajority of states to ratify constitutional amendments. However the federal government already had all the powers it needed.

Additionally, the relative ease of adding states meant that if the federal government cared enough, they could use the addition of new states as an endaround to issues that required constitutional amendments in the face of obstinate states. Any 7 of the original 13 states that ratified the constitution don’t have power to stop anything in the senate anymore (and this would still be the case even if they still got to directly appoint senators), because new states now crowd them out. In theory, all 13 could band together and try to stymie the federal government with every constitutional power they have and they would have nothing against the other 37 states. This is what happened in the run-up to the civil war, and attempts to reassert state rights over slavery effectively all failed, the only thing with a puncher’s chance at success being when the confederacy just openly defied the constitution and broke with the federal monopoly on force. And of course it’s a good thing that state rights didn’t work there because ending slavery is a far more important issue than states rights.

However what we have as a result of these glitches is a broken system that neither genuinely protects states rights nor allows for a federal government that makes sense in any representative context. As far as getting enough support to fix a broken system, that’s extremely difficult in part because other aspects of our system are broken and in part because the way the current system works informs people’s motivations in a future system.

As long as the president has as much power as he has and the EC works the way it does, federal policy is absurdly unpredictable. I don’t want the federal government to decide things for my state such as whether marijuana is legal because the presidential election at this time is decided by by a few tens of thousands of votes in states like Florida and Pennsylvania and I have no guarantee of consistent federal policy. I think a solution where we completely redrew state lines, made the federal government much more of a popular representative institution, maybe with something akin to the senate but with reduced powers, and with a less random executive branch. However if I get some but not all of those things, I’ve just cashed in my 2 senators to potentially oppose federal involvement in my state without getting a federal government that works better.

Edit to math: OK technically, if 37 states were behind a constitutional amendment, the original 13 would have just over 25% and would be able to block it. However this actually illustrates my point, because if the 37 cared enough, they could figure out if Puerto Rico or Guam would support them and use state admission to overcome this obstacle - they only need 1 state anymore.

8

The existence of police forces and state militias seems to undercut your assertion.

9

This is how those powers are laid out in Article I Section 8:

States effectively only have powers over their own armed forces as permitted by congress.

10

That still isn’t the same as saying the federal government has a monopoly on violence. The states can use their militia as they see fit, except if called into federal service. I’m not aware of any other federation where the state/province level continues to have its own armed forces.

Plus, the criminal law power is also an important state power. Police have the lawful authority to kill and to restrain, while state corrections can detain prisoners. Those are significant examples of state violence.

11

And gold discoveries too. I always liked that TV series, How the States Got Their Shapes.

12

DeadTreasSecretaries brings up the notion of adding new states, and how it was used in the past for strategic purposes. However, the hurdles to overcome for doing this now seem to be insurmountable?

I am retirement age and there hasn’t been a new state added in my lifetime. And I say this as a resident of Washington DC. I don’t have any Senators (does my vote even count in the EC?) Of course, there is a “Statehood for DC” movement, but I see that as akin to the indigenous Hawaiian independence movement - it has as much chance of succeeding, but you do you!

So, is the notion of adding (or even splitting up states) a non-starter and not worth discussing?

13

California has had several attempts to split. It’s an active motivation for many. But not me.

14

I’m going to challenge you on the scale of that. California has had some small vocal cohorts who propose the idea. But that is as far as it has gotten.

15

Electoral issues are probably the one big thing that needs to change in the US. As you say, there are a lot of local issues that can, and should, be dealt with locally. But voting for the Federal Government is clearly a Federal issue, and should not be something subject to local whims. Any US citizen should be able to vote freely in a Federal election, no matter where they happen to live, the same as every other citizen.

This is how it is here in Canada. Provincial elections and Federal elections are entirely separate, and every Canadian votes the same way across the country when we have a Federal election.

Of course, this does put some pressure on the Provinces to act responsibly. If there was a big disconnect between how Federal voting worked vs. provincial voting, I suspect a lot of people would complain and demand change in their provinces.

Pretty much all the other problems the US has right now stem from their fucked up electoral process. Fix that, and it becomes at least possible to fix everything else.

16

Drive up north and there are lots of signs for the state of Jefferson.

17

Just to be clear, I don’t think adding states is a good way of addressing these core big-picture problems. I think that the ability to add states is a massive loophole that undercut the powers states thought they were hanging on to and partially led to the situation we have now where states are basically just territories but the power balance in the federal government is extremely arbitrary based on where state lines were drawn.

I think there are basically 2 reasons it happened in the 1800s but not now. Back then, there was a massive westward expansion, and the government had to deal with a whole lot of territory and had do make some decision on what to do with it. Nowadays, we have Puerto Rico and DC as the only real areas that stick out. The other reason is that slavery was just such a huge issue that it got people to care enough to use new states to crowd out the old states. If the Democrats wanted to add 100 states to the union I don’t know what an issue we would have today that would be worth it - there’s no obvious constitutional amendment we could pass in spite of all of the issues going on right now.

If it was possible to snap my fingers and get into a paradigm where states were more even in population (i.e. there were a bunch of small states in what is now California) that would lead to a better system, but what would happen after that is that as soon as it was beneficial to split other states up for other political goals people would start doing that as well - it wouldn’t actually be a fix long-term.

18

The issue that could motivate it is the “un-democratization” of America.

As the divide between the popular will (as defined by the mass of the voters, not the preferences of the individual states) continues to separate from the political realities (Senate/House control, the Presidency via the EC) I can certainly see a breaking point forming. And that is without considering the possibility of state governments actively overriding the will of their own voters.

I asked the question in a thread awhile back about how large that gap could get before things turned ugly. Biden won the popular vote by 4.4% and still only barely won in a handful of key states. If that gap grows to 10% I think you could see movement on the “add states” or “change the EC” front. Or, perhaps, something more momentous.

19

Well Puerto Rico should be added as a state if for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do.

The Democrats have a lot of lower-hanging fruit they should get to - passing a VRA, nuking the filibuster if they have to, uncapping the house etc. before they even need to think about the bigger stuff.

If they reach that point and they just start splitting states to try to even things out, it will probably lead to a runaway effect of subsequent state-splitting and I’m not really sure where it ends. And I think doing that as a way of getting a Democratic supermajority of states and passing amendments that lead us to a government that is more about democratic federal power and institutions that give states representation being diminished, that’s just way too complicated for everyone to get their ducks in a row. It was a lot easier for people to line up in the 1800’s on much more concrete issues surrounding slavery.

20

Your discussion is about how we might “fix” our current situation using the State model.

Which brings me back to my original discussion. Go one step deeper and the underlying “problem” is States as entities, with their attendant powers in Federal issues.