5 ms·

I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parl

I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. If anything, the parliamentary republics we see today were products of the mid-19th century revolutions that sought to overturn those monarchies, with some inspiration from the example of the American revolution. As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs; they vote on local taxation for schools, libraries, and city, county and state services. Police behavior and oversite are definitely a problem, but not a good example of the whole of local democracy. It's unfortunate, of course, that there are parts of the U.S. that use the democratic process to remove services as well as fund them. Locally elected legislatures, school boards and city councils use their delegated powers to defund libraries, restrict voting rights and medical services and, of course restrict abortion rights. Democracy means decisions are made you don't agree with. I would contend that not many Americans think much about this because they haven't needed to. This is the way the country has always worked. On the other hand, you're right, it's not 100%, since there's a growing number of Americans who are using the tools of local democracy to remove and restrict rights and services to citizens.

skissane 3y ago
> I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. Well, as I pointed out in another comment – the UK already had a parliamentary system by the 1770s. George III was no absolute monarch, Parliament called the shots. He did have somewhat more real power than Charles III does, but already by then the Prime Minister was the real ruler of the UK, and the monarch was reduced to playing second fiddle. The last monarch of the UK who tried to stand up to Parliament was James II/VIII, who was overthrown in 1688 and replaced by new monarchs of Parliament's choosing (with his daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange as co-monarchs). Before him, James' father Charles I had lost his head due to a dispute with Parliament over who was boss. And then, when Mary's sister Anne died childless, Parliament chose to import Germany's Hanoverian dynasty, as the closest Protestant relatives, and George I's great grandfather became King. It was during the reign of George III's grandfather and predecessor, George II, that the decisive transfer of power from King to Prime Minister took place. Against that background, George III knew very well who was boss–not him. > As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs We have local democracy in Australia too. We have local governments, who are elected by popular vote; mostly the voters elect councillors who then elect the mayor, but some parts of Australia have directly elected mayors; local governments have various functions, the most important of which is planning (or "zoning" to use the American terminology), but also maintain non-major roads, operate public parks, swimming pools and libraries, are responsible for stray dogs, beach patrols, food safety inspections, parking enforcement, etc. They also commonly run the water and sewerage systems, especially outside of major cities (in major cities, water and sewerage are often controlled by state governments instead.) Probably the biggest difference is that a lot of things in the US which are run by local governments are in Australia run by state governments instead – law enforcement, the court system, jails, elections, public schools, public hospitals, public transport (rail and bus services). Constitutionally, in both Australia and the US, only states are sovereign and towns/cities/counties/shires/etc are mere delegations of the sovereign power of the state, wholly subject to its laws. But in practice, US states create a lot more local governments, and delegate them a lot more power, than Australian states do. One big difference is the idea of electing judges and prosecutors – in Australia (and also I think most of Europe), that is viewed as fundamentally unjust. Democratic election of judges and prosecutors compromises their independence, and hence calls into question the fairness, impartiality and justice of their decisions. Instead, judges are appointed by the government, as is the chief prosecutor of each jurisdiction – and their appointment is far less politicised than in the US, indeed few people here other than lawyers pay much attention to those appointments
- defrost 3y ago
  US v. AU population is a large factor here also. W.Australia is 3x the size of Texas with a total population not much more than 2 million. Australia is ~ 24 million or so (IIRC) against the US's 350+ million. The task of governing each AU state can likely be mapped in complexity against the task of running a few small US cities or smaller US states with low populations. The US requires an extra layer or two to match representation. The US also carries a burden of weight of years, AU Government is just over 120 years since 1900 Foundation and still relatively nimble, the US has ossified and become somewhat deified in the eyes of some since its creation. Strong agreement on the election of judges, etc. in the US - that just comes across as wrong to outside eyes.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > US v. AU population plays a large dactor here also. I don't agree. If we are talking about the distribution of powers between state and local governments, the population of the country as a whole doesn't matter, just the population of each state. Australia's most populous state, New South Wales (NSW), has a single state police force with a population of 8.1 million. If it were a US state, it would come 13th in population, between Virginia and Washington. So, 37 US states (74%) have a smaller population than New South Wales. At 800,000 km^2, NSW has a larger land area than every US state except for Alaska. If a single state police force can work in an Australian state with a population of 8 million, I see no reason why it couldn't work in a US state with both a smaller population and a smaller land area. And, if a single state police force works for a state of 8 million, why assume 8 million is some kind of maximum? It might work just as well for a state of 12 million or 16 million or 24 million or 30 million. It might even work for California or Texas. Some countries with much larger populations than either have national-level police only. But even if we say that California or Texas are "too big" for a single state police force – rather than their current systems of literally hundreds of independent local law enforcement agencies (county sheriffs and municipal police departments), why not divide each state into NSW-sized chunks (by population). Then California and Texas would each be divided into around 4 or 5 regions, each with its own democratically-elected regional governments, controlling the regional police force. Some would even argue that both California and Texas are too big, and each ought to be broken up into 3-5 smaller states. > The US also carries a burden of weight of years, AU Government is just over 120 years since 1900 Foundation and still relatively nimble, the US has ossified and become somewhat deified in the eyes of some since its creation. The US national constitution says nothing about the division of power between state and local governments. In fact, if a US state decided to abolish all local governments and replace them by direct rule by the state government, I've never heard anyone argue that would violate the national constitution. The US constitution (just like Australia's) is completely silent on the issue of local government. So, however ossified the US national constitution may be (actually it has been amended more frequently than Australia's!), isn't really relevant to the discussion here. And many US state constitutions are far less ossified than the US national constitution; Alabama rewrote their state constitution in 2022 (their previous state constitution dated from 1901, and during its life was amended 977 (!) times); previously, Rhode Island did the same thing in 1986, Georgia in 1983, Louisiana in 1975, Montana in 1973, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia in 1971, etc. Since statehood, Louisiana has had 11 different constitutions, Georgia 9, Alabama and Virginia 7, etc. Of the original 13 colonies, the only one which still has its original 17th century constitution in force is Massachusetts.

skissane 3y ago

> I'm not sure the European nations were less monarchical at the time of the American Revolution, when the break I spoke of occurred. Most countries that are parliamentary today were monarchical in the 1770s, and many remained so until the early 20th century. Well, as I pointed out in another comment – the UK already had a parliamentary system by the 1770s. George III was no absolute monarch, Parliament called the shots. He did have somewhat more real power than Charles III does, but already by then the Prime Minister was the real ruler of the UK, and the monarch was reduced to playing second fiddle. The last monarch of the UK who tried to stand up to Parliament was James II/VIII, who was overthrown in 1688 and replaced by new monarchs of Parliament's choosing (with his daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange as co-monarchs). Before him, James' father Charles I had lost his head due to a dispute with Parliament over who was boss. And then, when Mary's sister Anne died childless, Parliament chose to import Germany's Hanoverian dynasty, as the closest Protestant relatives, and George I's great grandfather became King. It was during the reign of George III's grandfather and predecessor, George II, that the decisive transfer of power from King to Prime Minister took place. Against that background, George III knew very well who was boss–not him. > As for local democracy, police problems are far from the only measure of success (or failure). States, towns, cities and counties in the U.S. still freely elect mayors, councils, judges, sheriffs We have local democracy in Australia too. We have local governments, who are elected by popular vote; mostly the voters elect councillors who then elect the mayor, but some parts of Australia have directly elected mayors; local governments have various functions, the most important of which is planning (or "zoning" to use the American terminology), but also maintain non-major roads, operate public parks, swimming pools and libraries, are responsible for stray dogs, beach patrols, food safety inspections, parking enforcement, etc. They also commonly run the water and sewerage systems, especially outside of major cities (in major cities, water and sewerage are often controlled by state governments instead.) Probably the biggest difference is that a lot of things in the US which are run by local governments are in Australia run by state governments instead – law enforcement, the court system, jails, elections, public schools, public hospitals, public transport (rail and bus services). Constitutionally, in both Australia and the US, only states are sovereign and towns/cities/counties/shires/etc are mere delegations of the sovereign power of the state, wholly subject to its laws. But in practice, US states create a lot more local governments, and delegate them a lot more power, than Australian states do. One big difference is the idea of electing judges and prosecutors – in Australia (and also I think most of Europe), that is viewed as fundamentally unjust. Democratic election of judges and prosecutors compromises their independence, and hence calls into question the fairness, impartiality and justice of their decisions. Instead, judges are appointed by the government, as is the chief prosecutor of each jurisdiction – and their appointment is far less politicised than in the US, indeed few people here other than lawyers pay much attention to those appointments

defrost 3y ago
US v. AU population is a large factor here also. W.Australia is 3x the size of Texas with a total population not much more than 2 million. Australia is ~ 24 million or so (IIRC) against the US's 350+ million. The task of governing each AU state can likely be mapped in complexity against the task of running a few small US cities or smaller US states with low populations. The US requires an extra layer or two to match representation. The US also carries a burden of weight of years, AU Government is just over 120 years since 1900 Foundation and still relatively nimble, the US has ossified and become somewhat deified in the eyes of some since its creation. Strong agreement on the election of judges, etc. in the US - that just comes across as wrong to outside eyes.
- skissane 3y ago
  > US v. AU population plays a large dactor here also. I don't agree. If we are talking about the distribution of powers between state and local governments, the population of the country as a whole doesn't matter, just the population of each state. Australia's most populous state, New South Wales (NSW), has a single state police force with a population of 8.1 million. If it were a US state, it would come 13th in population, between Virginia and Washington. So, 37 US states (74%) have a smaller population than New South Wales. At 800,000 km^2, NSW has a larger land area than every US state except for Alaska. If a single state police force can work in an Australian state with a population of 8 million, I see no reason why it couldn't work in a US state with both a smaller population and a smaller land area. And, if a single state police force works for a state of 8 million, why assume 8 million is some kind of maximum? It might work just as well for a state of 12 million or 16 million or 24 million or 30 million. It might even work for California or Texas. Some countries with much larger populations than either have national-level police only. But even if we say that California or Texas are "too big" for a single state police force – rather than their current systems of literally hundreds of independent local law enforcement agencies (county sheriffs and municipal police departments), why not divide each state into NSW-sized chunks (by population). Then California and Texas would each be divided into around 4 or 5 regions, each with its own democratically-elected regional governments, controlling the regional police force. Some would even argue that both California and Texas are too big, and each ought to be broken up into 3-5 smaller states. > The US also carries a burden of weight of years, AU Government is just over 120 years since 1900 Foundation and still relatively nimble, the US has ossified and become somewhat deified in the eyes of some since its creation. The US national constitution says nothing about the division of power between state and local governments. In fact, if a US state decided to abolish all local governments and replace them by direct rule by the state government, I've never heard anyone argue that would violate the national constitution. The US constitution (just like Australia's) is completely silent on the issue of local government. So, however ossified the US national constitution may be (actually it has been amended more frequently than Australia's!), isn't really relevant to the discussion here. And many US state constitutions are far less ossified than the US national constitution; Alabama rewrote their state constitution in 2022 (their previous state constitution dated from 1901, and during its life was amended 977 (!) times); previously, Rhode Island did the same thing in 1986, Georgia in 1983, Louisiana in 1975, Montana in 1973, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia in 1971, etc. Since statehood, Louisiana has had 11 different constitutions, Georgia 9, Alabama and Virginia 7, etc. Of the original 13 colonies, the only one which still has its original 17th century constitution in force is Massachusetts.