4 ms·

Is there a meaningful distinction? I have lived in four states, in everything from a huge city to a small town, and in every case "county" officials were as lo

Is there a meaningful distinction? I have lived in four states, in everything from a huge city to a small town, and in every case "county" officials were as local as politicians can be (in NYC the county officials i.e. borough president and staff are actually less powerful than the mayor, but obviously that is the exception). Personally I divide the US system into three levels, federal, state, and local, with "local" including all county offices. Is there a reason to view things differently?

giantg2 5y ago
"...and in every case "county" officials were as local as politicians can be" I would be interested to learn more about this. I have also live in multiple states and this doesn't sound like any of them. Municipalities always have some form of one of the following: mayors, councils, school boards, constables/police, magistrates, etc. "Is there a reason to view things differently?" Yeah. I see way more corruption at the county level than the local level. Most of the circumstances and scenarios I laid out in previous comments would not apply to county level officials, nor even to large municipalities. I was strictly speaking about small towns. The most important part is how information is gathered and spread. Small towns are notorious for information being found out and spreading rapidly. That oversight would not be the same in other settings. These mechanisms don't exist at the county level. They are far enough removed from their constituents that they can operate without the same watchful eyes.