Thoughts on this wacky "3 national urban/suburban/rural zones" representation idea?
Let's not focus on how we get there (constitutional convention, whatever) but let's say the US adopts a new model without too much else changing (at least before this new model is put into place). No revolution or any big new crisis.
The idea is that instead of 50 states, 5 territories, and DC, there are 3 "zones"
1. Urban
2. Suburban
3. Rural
*National Parks, with 0 population, are still run by the Department of Interior
Organization
-They don't need to be connected physically.
-They are each split into districts, just like how a state like California has all of its cities and towns.
Size
-The smallest a district can go is 1 square mile geographically, and 1000 people demographically.
-The largest a district can go is 10,000 square miles geographically, and 1 Million people demographically.
Political Governance
-Each district has the equivalent of a mix between a Mayor and a large, representative City Council.
-Each of the 3 zones has the equivalent of a mix between a Governor and a large, representative State Legislature.
Federal Representation
-For Congress, still have a Senate and a House.
-The Senate is much smaller, with 3 Senators per state (1 per each 6 year cycle, so each federal election always has a Senator election for their Zone).
-The House is much bigger, and instead of based in designated number by federal statute like 435, instead each Congressional District is equal to each of these Sub-zone districts.
-Each Zone and District is adjusted once every 10 years, according to the national Census (first adjusting the Zones, then adjusting the Districts).
Overall, the literal definition version of Federalism is much stronger, more like early United States. A lot is designated away from our current national/"federal" government to the 3 states/zones. Likewise, each Zone/state delegates a lot towards its districts.
For example (just an example)
-maybe Social Security is one of those things that the national government in Washington DC now delegates to the states
---maybe the Urban Zone has a Social Security program that's run similar to how it's run nationally now, that's the exact same for all people in its districts, and there's a debate to expand it to become a Universal Basic Income instead of just 65+
---maybe the Suburban Zone decided to have retirement saving completely privatized, or just allowed at the district-level if they so choose
---maybe the Rural Zone decided to keep Social Security largely similar, but for some additional regional/district variation
My 4 questions:
1. What are your thoughts, in general, on this whole idea?
2. What remaining questions would you have about this system?
3. If this was implemented (again forget the how but assume no radical events) do you think it would be more successful than the current system?
4. What do you predict the first 25 years of the system would look like for the country overall and for each zone?
Also, to be clear, I'm thinking of how experts talk about how we are in more of an urban-rural divide politically than anything else, and maps like these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/2020_United_States_presidential_election_results_map_by_county.svghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Results_by_county_of_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election_with_counties_scaled_by_number_of_votes_cast.pngAs well as articles like this NYT 2016 article:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html
