4 ms·

Or alternatively, that the federal government, as it currently operates, is simply no longer up to the task of modern governance. Too slow, too reliant on volu

Or alternatively, that the federal government, as it currently operates, is simply no longer up to the task of modern governance. Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons.

ColanR 6y ago
> Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons. Not sure you want an efficient, consolidated government if the wrong party is leading it.
WillPostForFood 6y ago
Too large
rayiner 6y ago
Somehow other countries with federal systems manage to implement “modern governance.” This chart shows government spending by various levels of government: https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 In the US, about half of all spending happens at the federal level. Germany, which also has a federal system as a matter of its constitution, also has the central government spending about half of all government dollars. Canada is even more federalist. The vast majority, about 3/4 of 4/5 of government spending happens at the provincial level. Denmark also has the majority of spending at the local level. Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Chile, and Mexico are about the same as the US in pushing about half of all spending down to the local governments.
- paulmd 6y ago
  there's nothing wrong with a federal system, the problem is specifically with the US's system and how there are too many "veto points". Checks and balances and getting policy accomplished are essentially opposing goals. If you allow tons of "veto points" where having literally any control of any branch of government allows you to grind policy to a halt, then getting anything done relies hugely on gentlemanly good-faith. In a two-party system that gentlemanly good faith eventually breaks down and you end up with our current problem, where you need supermajority control of all branches of government to actually do anything, because if you lack even one single point of control then party-line behavior will allow everything to be ground to a halt. Parliamentary systems are better, there is just one house in most cases, and the executive is of the same party as the legislature, so when a government forms it has consensus and can execute policy. Yes, this is less checked-and-balanced, and that's a good thing, because accomplishing policy and checks and balances are opposing goals. Too much checks and balance and nothing gets done. If everything is fine that's great, but our system has been deadlocked for 20 years now, things are not great, and nothing can be done about it. And there are still an executive and judicial branches in a parliamentary system, it is still a federal system, just not the American federal system. The real "checks and balances" is ultimately voting. Having snap elections allows that check to be manifested much more readily when the government begins to go off the rails of public opinion. (the queen is actually a very interesting apparatus in the british government... apart from having some kind of maximum duration between elections, you are dependent on someone to decide when to call a snap election. Obviously you can't really rely on a government that is completely off the rails to call an election on itself, and party line voting poses obvious problems. So how do you deal with it? An oracle machine (in the crypto sense) that exists outside the system and can operate independently to decide when to call an election. Which is what the queen does, she can dissolve parliament and call an election.)
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    A conclusion I'm leaning toward is that any sufficiently large and complex political system evolves to a focus on veto as the principle means of power. The etymology, direct from Latin, for "I forbid", is insightful. https://www.etymonline.com/word/veto https://www.etymonline.com/word/veto This even appears in technical projects, e.g., Linus Torvalds, who's for years been the Linux kernal's "no" man: [I]n the end, my job is to say no. Somebody has to be able to say no to people. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/20/07/03/2133201/linus-torvalds-i-do-no-coding-any-more https://linux.slashdot.org/story/20/07/03/2133201/linus-torv... Smaller, simpler systems, with greater levels of trust, or greater inequalities of power, seem to avoid this. Large ones, not. I'm sure there's some discussion of this in political theory, though I'm unaware of it. Listing out a typology of other loci of power would also be interesting.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Interesting ... a "focus on veto" would give a more nuanced role to the permanent members of the UN Security Council than just "those who hold the nuclear umbrellas."
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        Poking around, UN veto does seem to feature strongly in the literature.

ColanR 6y ago

> Too slow, too reliant on voluntary compliance, and most importantly, too difficult to make decisions with long term time horizons. Not sure you want an efficient, consolidated government if the wrong party is leading it.

WillPostForFood 6y ago

Too large

rayiner 6y ago

Somehow other countries with federal systems manage to implement “modern governance.” This chart shows government spending by various levels of government: https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 https://images.app.goo.gl/iVpyyr2Ftzo6m7PB6 In the US, about half of all spending happens at the federal level. Germany, which also has a federal system as a matter of its constitution, also has the central government spending about half of all government dollars. Canada is even more federalist. The vast majority, about 3/4 of 4/5 of government spending happens at the provincial level. Denmark also has the majority of spending at the local level. Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Chile, and Mexico are about the same as the US in pushing about half of all spending down to the local governments.

paulmd 6y ago
there's nothing wrong with a federal system, the problem is specifically with the US's system and how there are too many "veto points". Checks and balances and getting policy accomplished are essentially opposing goals. If you allow tons of "veto points" where having literally any control of any branch of government allows you to grind policy to a halt, then getting anything done relies hugely on gentlemanly good-faith. In a two-party system that gentlemanly good faith eventually breaks down and you end up with our current problem, where you need supermajority control of all branches of government to actually do anything, because if you lack even one single point of control then party-line behavior will allow everything to be ground to a halt. Parliamentary systems are better, there is just one house in most cases, and the executive is of the same party as the legislature, so when a government forms it has consensus and can execute policy. Yes, this is less checked-and-balanced, and that's a good thing, because accomplishing policy and checks and balances are opposing goals. Too much checks and balance and nothing gets done. If everything is fine that's great, but our system has been deadlocked for 20 years now, things are not great, and nothing can be done about it. And there are still an executive and judicial branches in a parliamentary system, it is still a federal system, just not the American federal system. The real "checks and balances" is ultimately voting. Having snap elections allows that check to be manifested much more readily when the government begins to go off the rails of public opinion. (the queen is actually a very interesting apparatus in the british government... apart from having some kind of maximum duration between elections, you are dependent on someone to decide when to call a snap election. Obviously you can't really rely on a government that is completely off the rails to call an election on itself, and party line voting poses obvious problems. So how do you deal with it? An oracle machine (in the crypto sense) that exists outside the system and can operate independently to decide when to call an election. Which is what the queen does, she can dissolve parliament and call an election.)
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  A conclusion I'm leaning toward is that any sufficiently large and complex political system evolves to a focus on veto as the principle means of power. The etymology, direct from Latin, for "I forbid", is insightful. https://www.etymonline.com/word/veto https://www.etymonline.com/word/veto This even appears in technical projects, e.g., Linus Torvalds, who's for years been the Linux kernal's "no" man: [I]n the end, my job is to say no. Somebody has to be able to say no to people. https://linux.slashdot.org/story/20/07/03/2133201/linus-torvalds-i-do-no-coding-any-more https://linux.slashdot.org/story/20/07/03/2133201/linus-torv... Smaller, simpler systems, with greater levels of trust, or greater inequalities of power, seem to avoid this. Large ones, not. I'm sure there's some discussion of this in political theory, though I'm unaware of it. Listing out a typology of other loci of power would also be interesting.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Interesting ... a "focus on veto" would give a more nuanced role to the permanent members of the UN Security Council than just "those who hold the nuclear umbrellas."
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Poking around, UN veto does seem to feature strongly in the literature.