So why did you not ask members of other federated countries? The US is not uniquely qualified; both Canada and Australia have provinces and states, respectively; and a constitutional division of powers.
But the actual problem looks like North vs South.
Greece looks more screwed up than any ex communist country while the Italian state is worse than most as well.
When I do, I’m wondering whether they’ll send their own team to the Olympics.
Because the U.S. has incorporated formerly independent states into the union (Texas, Hawaii, Vermont, California), don’t know enough about other federated states to say if this is true with them.
There’s actually two different problems. The North/South one you point out which is largely confined to Western Europe.
A separate problem that’s not getting as much press, at least in the US, is the East / West problem.
Several of the eastern European states are now little more than gangster kleptocracies with little or no history of respect for the rule of law. Importing them wholesale into the EU in their current backwards condition is a very bad fit and risks polluting the whole EU pool. There are other Eastern European states working through the accession process that are similarly situated.
What’s the E.U.? 
I think it was generally a good idea, but the expansion happened too quickly (as others have noted), and that the Brits were very smart not to join the monetary union. Not sure everyone here is distinguishing between the EU and Eurozone. Much overlap, but not entirely the same thing. I think the former is still a good idea, even if expansion got a bit out of hand, but that latter is not so good.
I think it’s a good thing that Disney got rid of it, so that future directors aren’t hamstrung by complaints that the new movie contradicts some comic book from the '80s.
…what?
I keep a certain level of awareness but I don’t dwell on it at all. I don’t know that its done much good or bad. It seems like the member nations are still trying to figure it all out themselves.
Great idea (anything that keeps France and Germany from each others throats is a good idea), needs some minor and major tweaking - mainly finance and population balances - not all are on equal footing, and trying bravely to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Keep at it for 2 or 3 generations, and you’ll have something.
Eeeeh?
Parliament is elected, what’s not elected is the Commissioners (that’s similar to how many of our own governments work, but the way in which the Commisioners are picked is different from how national governments are). We don’t have so many elections that we’ll miss the huge pile of papers European elections produce.
I do like it in theory because after World War 2 and the end of colonialism, it was highly desirable for the free states of the historical core of Western civilization to retain their strength in standing up to Communist totalitarianism. However in recent decades, especially after the disastrous decision to adopt the Euro despite having no common fiscal policy, the EU has become a tool of neoliberal bullying to undermine and degrade the social welfare networks of the less advanced European states. As a result I consider myself a friend of the populist movements of both the left and the right rising against the excesses of Brussels technocrats who are destroying the solidarity of these individual European nation-states. In retrospect, it was far more desirable to have a looser union pan-Atlantic union incorporating the younger and more vigourous countries of the United States and Canada (as well as perhaps Australia/New Zealand and the “tiger economies” of Japan and the Republic of Korea) that involved a common market and free migration but without a common currency or similar silly attempts at pseudo-centralization.
Overall, -3 although I wish it the best.
Great idea, maybe fatally flawed. It’s a monetary union with no central bank or unified monetary policy, it’s an economic union with a few dominant members and the rest having to follow their lead even though they don’t have the ability or desire to keep up, and it’s a social union bitterly divided on key issues, immigration being the big one.
If they had remained the EEC things would be much better for all of them, but the European Union wants them to act in unison and somehow allow them to maintain their uniqueness as independent countries. You can’t have both. The US works only because the federal government has supremacy and can impose things on the states that they might otherwise reject along with a strong, unified monetary policy. The EU has neither.
Sadly, I don’t think it will ever be a ‘United States of Europe’, though I really think that’s what they SHOULD do. It’s the only way it will be able to do what they want it to do, and the only thing to prevent things like what happened to Greece and some of the other nations in the EU…the union needs to be able to set fiscal policy across current national boundaries, IMHO anyway, in order for it to work. I have a mildly positive view of it, since I think the trade aspects and other monetary aspects are all for the good, and I think that Europeans really needed and still need such a union to ensure that they peacefully trade and deal with each other and the rest of the world, especially considering that the two most destructive wars in our species history started there (or it was the same war and just was an extension)…as well as most of the other wars on the destructive scale.
This. The USA is pretty self-centered.
I just finished teaching a college course called the Geography of Europe, and much of it was devoted to the history, structure, succeesses, and failures of the EU.
I had trouble answering the poll, because the thread title is “What do Americans think…” The answer to that would be “What is the EU?”. Only half my students had heard of it when the semester started, and these are people self-selected for an interest in this stuff…so the average American? Forget it!
In the end, I decided to answer the poll from my own perspective – +5! I’ve been (irrationally, perhaps) excited about a deeper, wider European union ever since 1988, when I was eighteen and visited Brussels, where a friend’s German uncle happened to be working on the project. He told us about the upcoming changes (common currency, etc.), and as a budding geographer, I was entranced. It just seemed cool to me.
In general, I’ve always liked anything which helps to dissolve international boundaries (that is, countries…or as social scientists call them, “states”) – I’ll give to any charity that calls itself “X Without Borders”!. I’ve liked how the subnational regions (Catalonia, etc.) have benefitted as well.
I try to be honest about the EU’s problems and limitations, but I can’t help but be a cheerleader.
Jihad Without Borders awaits your generous donation. 
Ha! The way I’ve phrased this sentiment of mine has been “Heck, I’d give to Nazis Without Borders!,” but that works, too.
I think the idea of supranational government is important to our species. At some point in the distant future we’re probably going to have a world government. That, or militant nationalism will destroy us first. The EU serves as a useful (introductory) model of how countries can - in theory - continue to maintain their cultural identities while operating under a supranational government. In practice, however…this ‘us and them’ mentality is pretty deeply embedded and based on how the EU has functioned to date…well, we might not be quite ready for this yet.
I like the EU in concept and in execution, but it could do with more breakdowns in national boundaries.
I think the E.U. got a little carried away with common currency (some like the U.K. and Sweden were smart to avoid that) and who they let in.
Having open borders for travel and free trade is fine, but the Euro as currency was not a good idea. I voted -2 because I do think the negatives outweigh the benefits, but it really depends on which country you’re in.