3 ms·

> 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, th

> 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.

defrost 3y ago
Thank you for the detailed response, appreciated. I failed to convey well the nature of two vague thoughts. With more than 16x the population of Australia and a heirarchy of representation limited by some naturally occuring factor at each level it's expected that the US would have more layers of organisation between a citizen and the highest decision making level. In a policing example, if one constable can walk the beat of a 100 citizens, and one Sargeant can oversee 100 constables, etc. how many layers are there between the fishmonger and the ultimate head (similarly for political representation, etc). It's a crude coverage issue. Similarly I referred to the US as ossified and deified not so much in the sense of actual real constitutional changes (it was interesting what you wrote and that you were across the details) but more in the sense of what the common US citizen on forums appears to believe about their own country. There are strong divisions on how the original Constitution should be interpretated coupled with apparent unification on the notion that it should be held in the highest regard. Neither of these vague notions particularly tie into the specifics of local governance within states, although the first relates to more generic control theory problem of how many sensors can a controller watch and how many controllers can a supervisor moniter, etc.
- skissane 3y ago
  > With more than 16x the population of Australia In 2021, Australia's population was 25.69 million, and the US population was 331.9 million – so US population was 12.9 times Australia's. Australia's population grows faster than the US, mainly due to significantly higher immigration (on a per capita basis), which causes the ratio to shrink over time - the figure you are citing was accurate 50+ years ago. By 2050, the ratio will probably have fallen to 11 or so; by the end of this century, it could easily be under 10. > With more than 16x the population of Australia and a heirarchy of representation limited by some naturally occuring factor at each level it's expected that the US would have more layers of organisation between a citizen and the highest decision making level. Well, the US does have 50 states versus only 6 for Australia – so that is the obvious level at which the US deals with being a much more populous country. US states are on average about 50% more populous than Australia's – 13 times the population but only 8 times as many states – but, the average US state has less people than NSW, Victoria's population is close to the US state average. Given they deal with being more populous by having more states, it isn't clear why they'd have to do that again at the sub-state level, especially given that 74% of US states have fewer people than NSW. And, maybe things in the US would work better if they added another 10 or so states by breaking up some of the larger ones, in which case the average state population gap between Australia and the US would shrink significantly. > Similarly I referred to the US as ossified and deified not so much in the sense of actual real constitutional changes (it was interesting what you wrote and that you were across the details) but more in the sense of what the common US citizen on forums appears to believe about their own country. I think you are on to something in that Americans are politically conservative – even Americans who identify as "liberal" or "progressive" are fundamentally conservative, if we put aside economics and hot-button social issues, and just focus on the core meaning of conservatism as "resistance to change". America's politics – even at the state level – are so ossified because US culture is (in that sense) much more conservative than that of the UK or Australia, among other countries. The extreme slowness in the adoption of the metric system is arguably another example of that.

defrost 3y ago

Thank you for the detailed response, appreciated. I failed to convey well the nature of two vague thoughts. With more than 16x the population of Australia and a heirarchy of representation limited by some naturally occuring factor at each level it's expected that the US would have more layers of organisation between a citizen and the highest decision making level. In a policing example, if one constable can walk the beat of a 100 citizens, and one Sargeant can oversee 100 constables, etc. how many layers are there between the fishmonger and the ultimate head (similarly for political representation, etc). It's a crude coverage issue. Similarly I referred to the US as ossified and deified not so much in the sense of actual real constitutional changes (it was interesting what you wrote and that you were across the details) but more in the sense of what the common US citizen on forums appears to believe about their own country. There are strong divisions on how the original Constitution should be interpretated coupled with apparent unification on the notion that it should be held in the highest regard. Neither of these vague notions particularly tie into the specifics of local governance within states, although the first relates to more generic control theory problem of how many sensors can a controller watch and how many controllers can a supervisor moniter, etc.

skissane 3y ago
> With more than 16x the population of Australia In 2021, Australia's population was 25.69 million, and the US population was 331.9 million – so US population was 12.9 times Australia's. Australia's population grows faster than the US, mainly due to significantly higher immigration (on a per capita basis), which causes the ratio to shrink over time - the figure you are citing was accurate 50+ years ago. By 2050, the ratio will probably have fallen to 11 or so; by the end of this century, it could easily be under 10. > With more than 16x the population of Australia and a heirarchy of representation limited by some naturally occuring factor at each level it's expected that the US would have more layers of organisation between a citizen and the highest decision making level. Well, the US does have 50 states versus only 6 for Australia – so that is the obvious level at which the US deals with being a much more populous country. US states are on average about 50% more populous than Australia's – 13 times the population but only 8 times as many states – but, the average US state has less people than NSW, Victoria's population is close to the US state average. Given they deal with being more populous by having more states, it isn't clear why they'd have to do that again at the sub-state level, especially given that 74% of US states have fewer people than NSW. And, maybe things in the US would work better if they added another 10 or so states by breaking up some of the larger ones, in which case the average state population gap between Australia and the US would shrink significantly. > Similarly I referred to the US as ossified and deified not so much in the sense of actual real constitutional changes (it was interesting what you wrote and that you were across the details) but more in the sense of what the common US citizen on forums appears to believe about their own country. I think you are on to something in that Americans are politically conservative – even Americans who identify as "liberal" or "progressive" are fundamentally conservative, if we put aside economics and hot-button social issues, and just focus on the core meaning of conservatism as "resistance to change". America's politics – even at the state level – are so ossified because US culture is (in that sense) much more conservative than that of the UK or Australia, among other countries. The extreme slowness in the adoption of the metric system is arguably another example of that.