Federal vs. Unitary Systems -by political party

[Frodo]

Inspired by this thread from well over seven years ago. 

Between federal and unitary systems, which do you most strongly favor?  And why?

[Goldwater]

Republican: Federal.

[DC Al Fine]

R Federal

[Sound + Vision]

Every country is unique. Every country demands it's own system of government. In the United States, I think that the federal system is a pretty good fit.

[Lief 🗽]

Federalism is awful. Obviously there needs to be some delegation of governing, but the vast majority of policy decision-making and financial budgeting (states should not have control over their own budgets) should be made by a unitary, centralized government.

[DC Al Fine]

Federalism is awful. Obviously there needs to be some delegation of governing, but the vast majority of policy decision-making and financial budgeting (states should not have control over their own budgets) should be made by a unitary, centralized government.

Why?

[Franzl]

Every country is unique. Every country demands it's own system of government. In the United States, I think that the federal system is a pretty good fit.

I agree in general, the US is simply so large and diverse that a certain degree of federalism is required. Of course, this shouldn't keep the federal government from doing nationwide policies on important issues, and human rights auch as life, healthcare, etc. shouldn't be subject to 50 different answers.

[Simfan34]

It's the 21st century. We cannot afford 51 layers of government. Let us not pretend that in this day and age what plays in Peoria does not also play just as well in Pensacola or Pasadena or Poughkeepsie. Unitary all the way.

[Franzl]

It's the 21st century. We cannot afford 51 layers of government. Let us not pretend that in this day and age what plays in Peoria does not also play just as well in Pensacola or Pasadena or Poughkeepsie. Unitary all the way.

What is practical in one area of a country the size of the US is not necessarily practical everywhere.

For example, I imagine one can make far better arguments for allowing gun ownership in Alaska or Wyoming than in New Jersey or New York.

[freefair]

Federalism, every time. I only wish Britain had switched to a highly decentralized federal system with a written constitution in the Edwardian era, maybe then there would have been no support for Ireland to leave the union.

[Donerail]

Well, the fascists and nutty liberals are for unitary, so I'm clearly for federalism.

[opebo]

I've a mixed view about this.  I think America's local governments, where non-professional local politicians - really just local leaders - can take care of local governance - is wonderful.  There's nothing I hate more than professionalization of bureaucracy and government (and life) in general.  And I agree that the large size and diverse nature of the US does suggest the states still have a useful role.

However, I dislike the anti-democratic aspect of America's federalism.  For example - I have no real problem with an electoral college system or the idea that we should avoid super-majorities in certain regions to allow a candidate to win without geographically diverse support, as certainly could happen in a simple-majority system.  But I think we should have electoral votes based entirely on population (one-man-one-vote) rather than privileging the small rural states.

[Vosem]

I would prefer a unitary system in theory, just to cut down on bureaucracy, but in practice the modern U.S. is a federalist country and there is no way to get rid of that, period; there is no support for taking away rights from the states and giving them to the federal government. (On the contrary, I imagine there are many who want just the opposite). So I suppose I'm Republican-F. Certainly I support the electoral college.

[politicallefty]

I am a Democrat and I voted federal, with some reservations. There would be some significant modifications made if I had my way. I think the line between federal and state/local control should be made more clear. For example, I think issues such as drug laws and gun control should be left to the states. With respect to guns, New York (City) and Montana have very different circumstances and should therefore have different gun laws if they so decide. The United States is far too large and diverse to have a unitary system.

I do think, however, that there are too many levels of government. Underneath the state level, there should be considerable consolidation of cities and counties and the like so that there is only one legal jurisdictional level (such as cities and town in New England) subordinate to the state. In many states, this would leave counties as the only local legal jurisdiction as opposed to having many different layers of government. If a state has a county government, no government should exist below that (i.e. no city or town governments). Too many layers of government creates overcomplexity and reduces accountability.

On my final point, I would modify the structure of the federal government. I would abolish the Senate and the Electoral College. The President would be elected by popular vote and a run-off of the top two would be required if no candidate received a majority. The House would stay as is (albeit expanded with districts drawn in a nonpartisan way), but the President would have to select a Government and Prime Minister from the House that maintains confidence (and therefore acceptable to the House Majority). This would be something like the French system, but veto power would be retained by the President as well as many other powers including appointment powers. (I kind of got strayed away on this, but I think the topic of preferred constitutional governmental reform would be an interesting one.)

[TNF]

Democratic: Unitary

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you really need to ask me which I prefer?

[Redalgo]

I come down on the federalist side here. That is not to say I like the way things are at the moment, however. At some point I want to delve into this matter more deeply and decide what kind of reforms are worthwhile to back.

The way I see it, the national tier of government should only be engaged in those actions which are necessary for the enforcement of the country’s constitution. Obviously my interpretation of what is “necessary” will differ from those of my opponents, as will my vision for what an ideal constitution would contain, but at least in theory I feel most facets of policymaking ought to be handled by the states. Governing institutions at the county and/or municipal levels, on the other hand, ought to be managerial in focus. I’m a bit interested in exploring options for how to make federalism less grossly inefficient yet prefer that inefficiency to forgoing the benefits of divided powers and checks and balances. Some red tape, gridlock, and “dysfunction” can be good for us.

[Supersonic]

Independent: Unitary.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Depends of the size of the country and its cohesion.

I think a federal system is better fit for the United States (still, it should be much less federal than it is). Most European countries can be fine with a unitary system, though with some degree of decentralization.

[Hash]

I generally favour federalism with a few exceptions; in some countries federalism is a necessity.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Federalism without a doubt.

[freefair]

To US Democrats who vote or sympathise with unitarism- why the federalism hate, given that, other left wing parties around the world, such as UK Labour, Indian Congress, Spanish SWP, Canadian Liberals, have been the most active in decentralising political power to geographical areas?  (which I agree with the it's fullest extent).

[Frodo]

To US Democrats who vote or sympathise with unitaryism- why the federalism hate, given that, rhetorically, other left wing parties around the world, such as UK Labour, Indian Congress, Spanish SWP, Canadian Liberals, among many, have been the most active in decentralising political power to geographical areas?  (which I agree with the it's fullest extent).

Personally I am more of a federalist, but the reason I suppose why many Democrats tend to have such negativity to federalism is because for them it is a synonym for states rights.  And if you are even casually familiar with our history (particularly as it concerns African-Americans), you would understand why there is often a hostile reaction to the term among liberals of all races.  

[Antonio the Sixth]

To US Democrats who vote or sympathise with unitarism- why the federalism hate, given that, other left wing parties around the world, such as UK Labour, Indian Congress, Spanish SWP, Canadian Liberals, have been the most active in decentralising political power to geographical areas?  (which I agree with the it's fullest extent).

There is a major difference between devolution/decentralization in traditionally unitary States, and federalism as it's practiced in the US.