7 ms·

I mean, what else could be the cause? One way or another, it'll come down to some insane policy decision or other. And this "states vs federal" power struggle

• Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Even though there's definitely a strong state by state correlation, I thought it was interesting that a number of states (like South Dakota and Wyoming) had such a wide range of outcomes. Not sure of that's just randomness due to smaller population sizes or what
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • zoklet-enjoyer 4y ago
    Those are reservations. MT, ND, MN, WI too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
    • Rebelgecko 4y ago
      Well, that's a very depressing answer to the mystery. Thanks though!
  • red-iron-pine 4y ago
    Smaller populations, more rural populations -- see also: rural vs urban divide -- and, as another poster mentioned, Native American reservations, which are often some of the poorest areas in the US.
• ip26 4y ago
  The problem with federal standards is getting everyone to agree. If state standards aren’t allowed and California wants tougher environmental standards on California land, but Texas doesn’t, you force a showdown, a loser, and simmering resentment for decades.
  • epgui 4y ago
    100% agree with the first sentence. > If state standards aren’t allowed and California wants tougher environmental standards on California land, but Texas doesn’t, you force a showdown, a loser, and simmering resentment for decades. Federal standards are in the interest of all citizens, whether or not they frustrate some state politician or not shouldn't even count as an objection. I don't care if the Texas government is happy, but I do care if the people in Texas are healthy. Maybe that's just me though.
    • ip26 4y ago
      First, I’m sure it’s hard to imagine, but California could lose said showdown and find themselves obstructed from protecting even only California. Second, it’s not just some lone politician that would care. The whole Roe v. Wade thing should have made clear that half of the country had been seething to overturn it for decades. Our whole system is built on consent of the governed; Federal mandate is therefore tricky if one large state is in overwhelming support of an issue while another is overwhelmingly opposed.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• pfannkuchen 4y ago
  What changed between the old days and now to make running many independent(ish) experiments in government stop making sense?
  • lapcat 4y ago
    The 13 colonies were not "experiments". They were preexisting local governments that needed to come to agreement on forming a new nation after overthrowing the rule of the British King. The compromises made in the US Constitution were the price for that agreement at the time. The problem is that people in the 21st century still feel bound by an 18th century agreement. I guess the alternative is another civil war, so that might be why the agreement lasts, no matter how shaky and dubious.
• brightball 4y ago
  Many US states are size equivalent to entire EU countries. There’s no need to let the EU control those countries directly, same goes for states. Going one level higher up the chain doesn’t gain anything other than further separating people from policy makers.
  • lapcat 4y ago
    However, US states are vastly more interconnected than EU countries. We all (well, mostly) speak the same language, we all use the same currency and always have used the same currency, you can walk or drive across the borders of any states with nobody checking or caring, and indeed states don't need to take individual responsibility for protecting their borders militarily. You can live and work in any state you want and move to or work in a different state at any time. The US military is mostly nationalized. The state-based National Guard does exist, but it's quite small and weak compared to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. And the National Guard doesn't have nuclear weapons! Imagine if individual US states controlled nukes...