Other federal systems face the same dilemmas. In Australia the powers of the states and federal government are set by the constitution. The feds don't have jur

Other federal systems face the same dilemmas. In Australia the powers of the states and federal government are set by the constitution. The feds don't have jurisdiction in many areas. It has to be a team effort. So they have whole of government meetings to work out a common, co-ordinated approach. We see a common message and have federal government support for the states but each state is free to implement measures appropriate to their local situation. I think this consensus driven approach is the only way it can work. The federal government implementing border security, helping with international trade, mobilising military, providing funding. States legislating isolation, enforcing law and order, organising hospitals and testing. Australia has a much smaller population, fewer states and less political extremes. It would be easy to dismiss our relatively good performance in this crisis as due to our isolation and geography. But I think our political system has worked well for us. Even though I don't like some of our political leadership and don't consider them very effective normally, even their worst efforts are looking good compared to what I see elsewhere in the world. I think in a crisis like this if you rely too strongly on a quarterback to take control you can get into a lot of trouble if your quarterback turns out to be useless or even detrimental. The elected king model is too risky. An executive controlled by the legislature is far more responsible and effective.