Thanks for a thoughtful response - and about politics! It's positively un-American these days! A few points in response, hopefully equally thoughtful: First, t

Thanks for a thoughtful response - and about politics! It's positively un-American these days! A few points in response, hopefully equally thoughtful: First, to expand on one point, note that the devolution also is or was used by segregationists, by pro-life advocates, and by Obamacare opponents, to name a few. But to the heart of it: 1) Consider these questions: Name your local state Representative, state Senator and their opponent(s) in this year's election. How about the leader(s) of your state house(s)? Maybe you know, but I think you'll agree that probably <10% or even <5% of voters can answer even the first question. 2) Is there a real chance those incumbents will lose? If like (most? many?) people these days there is not, then to whom are those representatives accountable? 3) If citizens have no awareness of and often no choice about their state representatives (or their activities), then state legislatures are not democratic, de facto. It makes them much easier targets for influence by the well-funded few and I know that some, such as the Koch organizations, have pushed devolution for that very reason, and conduct much/most of their activity at state and local levels. Regardless of the principle or theory behind it, most advocates use it when it serves their purposes: When they are being outvoted in Washington and so they seek a different forum, and when a powerful few want more political control, as described above (including people left-of-center, as you point out, though my impression is that it's less common). Personally I think it's a political tool, good for some things and bad for others, and I look at the outcomes: Which gets better results? My highest principle is people's health, liberty and welfare, not abstract theories of government.